Gravitational Singularity

[Vmedvil]

Gravitational constant --- Cosmological constant = same thing or two different things?   I have not yet grasped the concept of "cosmological constant" other than it relating to Dark Energy.  No need to go into it here; just say if it is the same or different.  Thank you.

 

Well, the G constant governs gravity's strength,  Λ the cosmological constant measures the amount of Dark Energy released from the Big bang via whatever method generated it. The Hubble constant H governs the rate of universe expansion, they are all related, but not the same. I usually use this equation below to relate all of them made by a Russian Physicist. 

 

[hazelm]

Well, the G constant governs gravity's strength,  Λ the cosmological constant measures the amount of Dark Energy released from the Big bang via whatever method generated it. The Hubble constant H governs the rate of universe expansion, they are all related, but not the same. I usually use this equation below to relate all of them made by a Russian Physicist. 

 

Thank you very much, Vmedvil.  That is all quite clear and understandable. 

[LuigiA]

Is it conceivable that Black Holes produce Dark Matter?

Dark matter would escape the Black Hole gravity since we now believe the property of Dark Matter is anti- gravitational.
That would explain why the galaxies are pushed further apart and the process is actually accelerating.
Assumption is, when Matter is compressed down to atoms, even atoms are compressed.
That process would release the "empty" space (99.9999% of the volume of the Atom).
An atom is mostly empty space, but empty space is mostly not empty. The reason it looks empty is because electrons and photons don't interact with the stuff that is there, quark and gluon field fluctuations. It actually takes energy to clear out space and make a true 'empty' vacuum.
That could be the stuff that Dark Energy is made off.

Edited October 12, 2017 by LuigiA

[Vmedvil]

Is it conceivable that Black Holes produce Dark Matter?

Dark matter would escape the Black Hole gravity since we now believe the property of Dark Matter is anti- gravitational.

That would explain why the galaxies are pushed further apart and the process is actually accelerating.

Assumption is, when Matter is compressed down to atoms, even atoms are compressed.

That process would release the "empty" space (99.9999% of the volume of the Atom).

An atom is mostly empty space, but empty space is mostly not empty. The reason it looks empty is because electrons and photons don't interact with the stuff that is there, quark and gluon field fluctuations. It actually takes energy to clear out space and make a true 'empty' vacuum.

That could be the stuff that Dark Energy is made off.

 

We do not know how Dark Matter is generated most people think that they are sterile neutrinos in the physics community but there is no evidence either way, but no Dark Matter like Normal Matter does have gravity of the same direction of its twin type of matter. Hawking Radiation is known to escape Black holes but that is a form of Normal Matter or Bosons mainly photons. Dark Energy is the one that acts as Anti-gravity but on the universe's expansion it does push the same direction as gravity. The cause of Dark Energy is unknown of original but it is commonly held that it was created early in the universe. Electrons and Protons repel each-other that is why there is much empty space the charges keep them together and the Strong Nuclear Force does not have much strength at that distance, but spin pushes them apart pushing a force against their electromagnetic attraction, but anything with Energy has the same forces of gravity, there is no negative energy that people know of.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[hazelm]

I like LuigiA's idea, though.  I have always thought something has to be happening to all that matter that the black hole swallows.  I had a different idea about that but I like his idea, too.  Black holes as recycle bins?  Admittedly, I speak in ignorance.  You all carry on.

[Vmedvil]

I like LuigiA's idea, though.  I have always thought something has to be happening to all that matter that the black hole swallows.  I had a different idea about that but I like his idea, too.  Black holes as recycle bins?  Admittedly, I speak in ignorance.  You all carry on.

 

Now, black-holes are large recycle bins, they transform all matter/energy they contact into whatever form they store it in then expel it over time as hawking radiation or when they evaporate. We don't know what causes Dark Energy formation she could be right but Dark matter and Dark energy despite sharing the Dark are nothing alike nor related.  The idea of Sterile neutrinos being dark matter has never really been evidence proven but it seems like a logical choice. It is not about liking a idea it is about how it fits with the universe. There are several ideas which I absolutely hate which are true to the universe we don't get to choose what evidence seems to point as being true being a scientist is like being a detective. I am sure there are many detectives that find evidence that they wish were not true like I absolutely hate the formation of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, but I still have to use them as they give a accurate description of the universe personally, I find them to be the most complex pain in the @ss parts of physics but I didn't get a say in it. Like I would have failed Einstein and the creators of QFT as being not worth doing their equations to get the exact answer much easier to make a chart of all interactions and memorize them which happened in QFT that is how much people hated doing QFT which is still less annoying than GR, that is saying something, but no in science what you believe to true is meaningless without proof. 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[hazelm]

Now, black-holes are large recycle bins, they transform all matter/energy they contact into whatever form they store it in then expel it over time as hawking radiation or when they evaporate. We don't know what causes Dark Energy formation she could be right but Dark matter and Dark energy despite sharing the Dark are nothing alike nor related.  The idea of Sterile neutrinos being dark matter has never really been evidence proven but it seems like a logical choice. It is not about liking a idea it is about how it fits with the universe. There are several ideas which I absolutely hate which are true to the universe we don't get to choose what evidence seems to point as being true being a scientist is like being a detective. I am sure there are many detectives that find evidence that they wish were not true like I absolutely hate the formation of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, but I still have to use them as they give a accurate description of the universe personally, I find them to be the most complex pain in the @ss parts of physics but I didn't get a say in it. Like I would have failed Einstein and the creators of QFT as being not worth doing their equations to get the exact answer much easier to make a chart of all interactions and memorize them which happened in QFT that is how much people hated doing QFT.

 

You are making my point - even if not intentionally.  As a scientist, one must stick to the "rules".   The rest of us get to dream and speculate - until the scientists explain to us why our dreams are air bubbles.  Then we have to change our minds.  And I promise I do listen to the scientists.  BTW, good to hear someone else hates general relativity.  I won't say I exactly hate it.  I have thoughts about how it is being interpreted.  But that isn't our topic here.  I am off to read about Hawking radiation.  Have a good discussion.  "I shall return."

[LuigiA]

We know the galaxies are moving apart and Accelerating.

The gravity inside the galaxie keeps the stars together. 

However there might be a very weak gravitational link between Galaxies.

So what is the growing force that pushes Galaxies apart.

 

New study calls it Dipole Repeller. 

Because the Dipole Repeller is low in density, with just a few galaxies in its massive void, this empty region acts as a repellant force. The universe is full of repellers and attractors, but the brightness of the attractors is easier to detect. Due to their low density, repellers appear as dark, empty voids, no matter their size. Little is known about the Dipole Repeller or the galaxies within it, but understanding more about it can increase our understanding of the universe and how it works.

 

 

We also know each Galaxy has at least one Black Hole,

Now if Black Holes produce Dark matter that would escape the Galaxy gravity and fills the empty space, that would explain why Galaxies are accelerating.

That would also prove that the Dark Matter was not created early in the universe, but that is growing.

Edited October 10, 2017 by LuigiA

[LuigiA]

Is it conceivable that Black Holes produce Dark Matter?

Dark matter would escape the Black Hole gravity since we now believe the property of Dark Matter is anti- gravitational.

That would explain why the galaxies are pushed further apart and the process is actually accelerating.

Assumption is, when Matter is compressed down to atoms, even atoms are compressed.

That process would release the "empty" space (99.9999% of the volume of the Atom).

An atom is mostly empty space, but empty space is mostly not empty. The reason it looks empty is because electrons and photons don't interact with the stuff that is there, quark and gluon field fluctuations. It actually takes energy to clear out space and make a true 'empty' vacuum. 

That could be the stuff that Dark Energy is made off.

We have split Atoms here on earth (without the forces of Black Hole) down to Quarks as the elements of the Proton and Neutron..  We claim there are 6 Quarks and 6 antiQuarks.  Let's assume Black Hole can do that as well and it is acting as as fuel for Dark Matter.

Edited October 11, 2017 by LuigiA

[TomKalbfus]

But how does the Universe recycle itself? How does it get back to its earlier denser state?

[LuigiA]

But how does the Universe recycle itself? How does it get back to its earlier denser state?

I am not talking about recycling. Only of a small byproduct of the work forces in a Black Hole. Most of the mass consumed remains trapped, however small amounts of Dark matter escape.

 

This statement is false.

Nothing can escape a black hole. No radiation, no light, no particles, nothing.

 

We know that Gravity can escape it, travel the universe and reach Earth from 1.3 Billion Light Years away.

 

 

[TomKalbfus]

When something falls into a black hole, it approaches the speed of light as it nears the event horizon, since nothing can reach the speed of light, nothing ever quite makes it to the event horizon of the black hole, time slows down for objects falling into a black hole, and all the mass of a black hole hasn't yet reached the event horizon of that black hole and never will! One of the things that happen to objects as they approach the speed of light is their relative mass increases. As an object approaches the event horizon of a black hole it falls faster and faster and its mass increases approaching infinity, but the rest of the Universe does not see this relativistic mass increase, because the gravity is "red shifted" as it climbs out of the gravity field of a black hole. The gravitational mass is red-shifted by as much as the mass increases by nearing the speed of light. This part makes sense to me, what doesn't make sense is Hawking radiation. Hawking basically says that the Universe is full of virtual particles in a vacuum, that the vacuum is made of equal parts positive and negative masses, and they are always creating and destroying one another, but near a black hole, more negative particles fall into a black hole than positive ones, the positive ones that remain are Hawking radiation. The unasked question is why a black hole should attract more negative particles than positive ones? Why wouldn't a black hole eat a positive particle and emit negative Hawking radiation? Of course that is all quantum physics, an you throw a few equations on the board and that explains everything.

 

So what does this look like from the point of view of someone falling into a black hole? If the black hole is massive enough, he doesn't get torn apart by tidal forces, he falls towards the event horizon and since his time perception slows down, he sees the Universe speeding up as he quickly descends towards the event horizon, and just before he reaches it, the Universe bombards him with negative particles and he is gone, faster than the thought registers in his brain. Since most of the dangerous tidal forces would occur within the even horizon and he never gets that close, he is never torn apart by them. the astronaut gets turned into Hawking radiation, why? I don't know, but that is what Hawking's theory suggests.

Edited October 11, 2017 by TomKalbfus

[LuigiA]

[TomKalbfus]

 

Did you intend to say something?

[LuigiA]

Did you intend to say something?

Yes I did. Where is my post ?

[LuigiA]

Big Bang Theory without the Bang

 

The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old  it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light!

 

That does not seem right to me.

It says that all the galaxies were compressed into a singularity (unimaginably dense point)? 

Then it exploded.  Why?

 

Alternative explanation would be:

The Universe existed (and still does as we can see it) as gaseous or singular particles independently floating around.

Then a Gravity particle was created with its uniques force that attracts oder particles, by a process we do not understand jet.

That started the chain reaction of formation of bigger objects, with more gravity and so on.

 

In some case the gravity was so concentrated that it created black holes.

[TomKalbfus]

My theory is that the Universe did not begin with an incredibly dense point, it was incredibly dense, but it was not a point, it fact it was incredibly dense and infinite in all directions, and then the density decreased rather suddenly. I believe there are some parts in the Universe where the Big Bang is still happening today, if you have an infinite universe, then every probability shows up somewhere in it, including regions of high density and regions of low density. I think when a certain level of high density is reached, gravity becomes a repulsive instead of an attractive force, it repels light, accelerates time. Remember what I said about Hawking radiation? Nothing can reach a black hole's event horizon, everything falling into a black hole gets frozen in time just outside the event horizon, virtual particles bombard the matter falling into a black hole until there is nothing left, the counter parts to the negative particles rush out of the black hole at nearly the speed of light. large black holes take trillions of years to radiate away and explode, but not as measured from someone falling into one, from that perspective the black hole will shrink and explode right away, before you can even reach it. It doesn't matter which black hole you fall into, if could be a galactic black hole with billions of solar masses, and it will still explode before you can reach its event horizon, such an explosion may resemble another Big Bang!