Considering the time scales involved are on the order of 10100 years (ten thousand, trillion, trillion trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times greater than the current age of the universe) I doubt anyone will be around to see it.jadeturners said:I am not looking forward to witnessing the end of the universe. It's just so horrible.
Cantstandit said:If there is a black hole in the center of a galaxy, then it will probably suck the galaxy into it eventually, but I don't know if every galaxy has to have black hole in its center, or if it's not possible for a body to have stable orbit around such black hole.
Dark matter and dark energy are not necessarily actual matter and energy. These are just placeholder names for phenomena that we don't yet understand that look *like* it were matter and energy at work, that we can't see. It could turn out that it's not an additional matter, but that our equations were wrong, or that we were looking in wrong place/wrong way.
Why would you think it would? Note that black holes do not "suck". The gravity of a black hole is no different to the gravity of anything else, if the sun suddenly became a black hole it would make absolutely no difference to Earth's orbit (though it would get quite cold). To say that all matter will end up in black holes is to imply that over deep time all matter will at some point come into contact with a black hole. Without clear maths showing the probability of that it is an unfounded assertion especially considering the vanishingly small volume of the universe occupied by black holes.salvestrom said:Sean M Carroll stated (in a talk on cosmology) that all matter would end up in black holes. I had previously ventured this opinion on these boards and was told 'no, that won't happen'. I currently have no idea who's right. This seems like a good thread to hammer it out.
Ryan_m_b said:Why would you think it would? Note that black holes do not "suck". The gravity of a black hole is no different to the gravity of anything else, if the sun suddenly became a black hole it would make absolutely no difference to Earth's orbit (though it would get quite cold). To say that all matter will end up in black holes is to imply that over deep time all matter will at some point come into contact with a black hole. Without clear maths showing the probability of that it is an unfounded assertion especially considering the vanishingly small volume of the universe occupied by black holes.
See this section of the link I provided above.
As I see it electrical charges are stripped out of their atoms and ejected from black holes as high energy cosmic rays. The ultimate fate of the universe is charged particles and radiation. I suspect gravitational fields separate oppositely charged particles until the electrostatic forces overcome gravitational forces. Charged particles come together and annihilate, causing the quark-gluon plasma to be formed and another big bang.Haelfix said:There is a black hole era, where most matter in galaxies will be concentrated (the rest will have decayed into photons and/or be ejected)
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
But eventually they too will decay away via Hawking radiation.
What happens after that point is a real puzzle. The approximations used in statistical mechanics start to break down when you deal with length and timescales of that magnitude, and all sorts of exotic effects start to become possible!
ynot1 said:As I see it electrical charges are stripped out of their atoms and ejected from black holes as high energy cosmic rays. The ultimate fate of the universe is charged particles and radiation. I suspect gravitational fields separate oppositely charged particles until the electrostatic forces overcome gravitational forces. Charged particles come together and annihilate, causing the quark-gluon plasma to be formed and another big bang.
ynot1 said:As I see it electrical charges are stripped out of their atoms and ejected from black holes as high energy cosmic rays. The ultimate fate of the universe is charged particles and radiation. I suspect gravitational fields separate oppositely charged particles until the electrostatic forces overcome gravitational forces. Charged particles come together and annihilate, causing the quark-gluon plasma to be formed and another big bang.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to litigate. I'm here to propose what I view as a most plausible scenario. You might try reading up on Van de Graf generators. Imagine an outer shell of positrons and an inner shell of electrons. Do you understand electrostatic attraction between unlike charges? What would happen in that case?phinds said:"As I see it" and "I suspect" are not helpful arguments and your statements are utter nonsense. Read some physics.
The Van de Graff generator is used as an analogy of the universe after the black holes have long gone. Sorry for the confusion.phinds said:Now THERE'S something you and I can agree on (although not the "we" part). You are dealing not just in speculation but in unsubstantiated speculation that is absurd. A Van deGraff generator as a model of a black hole? REALLY?
Look, I'm coming across as rude in this and that's not actually my intent. It's just that I see your proposals as having no relation to actual physics except that you have mashed up some buzz words that are used in physics.
I mean take the thought
"gravitational fields separate oppositely charged particles"
I was not aware that charge has any effect on gravitational attraction. Do you have any references for this?
I understand even the proton decays, but before that time it would most likely be recycled by a black hole.Ryan_m_b said:Why would you think it would? Note that black holes do not "suck". The gravity of a black hole is no different to the gravity of anything else, if the sun suddenly became a black hole it would make absolutely no difference to Earth's orbit (though it would get quite cold). To say that all matter will end up in black holes is to imply that over deep time all matter will at some point come into contact with a black hole. Without clear maths showing the probability of that it is an unfounded assertion especially considering the vanishingly small volume of the universe occupied by black holes.
See this section of the link I provided above.
ynot1 said:Certainly charge has no affect on gravitational attraction. Only matter. Charged particles do have mass, I believe. And gravity has effect on mass. I'm suggesting gravity has an attractive force on matter and a repulsive force on antimatter. Positrons, being I believe antimatter, would then be repelled by gravity. Electrons, of course, attracted. So as long as gravity is around it will separate positrons and electrons. I know it's is a bit indirect. Difficult to understand I guess. But I wouldn't waste time looking for any references about charge having any effect on gravitational attraction. Could be though. I just never thought about it I guess.
ynot1 said:I understand even the proton decays, but before that time it would most likely be recycled by a black hole.
Perhaps an interesting observation about this speculation, consistent with Einstein's idea about time being treated on an equal footing with spatial dimensions would be that particles coexist moving in opposite directions in space. So they should coexist moving in opposite directions in time. But note since time is only one dimension particles can coexist for extended periods only if moving in opposite directions beginning with their creation. Otherwise they would collide and annihilate, similar to annihilation when they meet in space. Actually as I remember there are instances of time reversibility in Feynman diagrams but I think it only lasts for a fleeting moment until another collision. I doubt if you could get any bonus points in your relativity class for mentioning this observation. You might even get laughed at. So please don't tell them where you heard this idea.phinds said:He does, but I think the consensus is that that is just a math thing that gives good answers but stuff doesn't REALLY travel backwards in time. I not positive about that.
phinds said:WHY? Where do you get this nonsense?
You're right. Probably. So do they get recycled by black holes? My guess is they may be ejected in cosmic rays. More nonsense?phinds said:WHY? Where do you get this nonsense?
ynot1 said:You're right. Probably. So do they get recycled by black holes? My guess is their charge is stripped off on entry to the event horizon and their charges are ejected in cosmic rays. More nonsense?
Note matter attracts matter and I should think antimatter attracts antimatter. Also like charges repel. Therefore clouds of charged particles exist in a stable configuration, if such is possible, only if the gravitational attraction is balanced by electrostatic repulsion. If this isn't possible then my idea about clouds of electrons and positrons sinks. However if it is possible then the stable configurations would allow spacetime to shed its entropy. More nonsense I guess.Drakkith said:The current view of science is that both matter and antimatter follow the same laws regarding gravity. It is "possible" that antimatter would be repelled, but by possible I mean that we simply haven't tested it conclusively yet.
ynot1 said:As I see it electrical charges are stripped out of their atoms and ejected from black holes as high energy cosmic rays. The ultimate fate of the universe is charged particles and radiation. I suspect gravitational fields separate oppositely charged particles until the electrostatic forces overcome gravitational forces. Charged particles come together and annihilate, causing the quark-gluon plasma to be formed and another big bang.
The point of debate is for antimatter.ibysaiyan said:Gravity is an attractive force...
I believe it has been noted already. If antimatter didn't possesses reverse gravity (or positive gravity, for that matter) on the surface of the Earth they wouldn't have to use magnetic confinement. In orbit, now that would be an interesting experiment.alexg said:Antimatter has been created and stored for as long as 16 minutes.
If antimatter possesed reverse gravity, it would have been noted already.
Magnetic confinement in orbit might be a good idea though. Just in case.ynot1 said:I believe it has been noted already. If antimatter didn't possesses reverse gravity on the surface of the Earth they wouldn't have to use magnetic confinement. In orbit, now that would be an interesting experiment.
I don't think like charges will ever be attracted by gravity and so this idea sinks. However it suggests a possible mechanism for CP violation in pair production - the gravitational field.ynot1 said:Note matter attracts matter and I should think antimatter attracts antimatter. Also like charges repel. Therefore clouds of charged particles exist in a stable configuration, if such is possible, only if the gravitational attraction is balanced by electrostatic repulsion. If this isn't possible then my idea about clouds of electrons and positrons sinks. However if it is possible then the stable configurations would allow spacetime to shed its entropy. More nonsense I guess.
However note protons do attract protons at subatomic distances perynot1 said:I don't think like charges will ever be attracted by gravity and so this idea sinks. However it suggests a possible mechanism for CP violation in pair production - the gravitational field.
alexg said:A number of GUTS, as well as the disproved Steady State, call for proton decay. Experiments, such as the various water tanks in deep underground mines, have never seen proton decay, and have placed the lower limit on the half life of the proton at 1.01×10^34 years. That's 24 orders of magnitude greater than the current age of the universe.
it would most likely be recycled by a black hole
Very interesting. Ergo black holes do not recycle protons (back into radiation). So protons will be part of the end game along with the leptons.phinds said:I was not talking about proton decay. I was talking about
"it would most likely be recycled by a black hole"
I cannot see any foundation for such a statement.
ynot1 said:I believe it has been noted already. If antimatter didn't possesses reverse gravity (or positive gravity, for that matter) on the surface of the Earth they wouldn't have to use magnetic confinement. In orbit, now that would be an interesting experiment.
ynot1 said:Very interesting. Ergo black holes do not recycle protons (back into radiation). So protons will be part of the end game along with the leptons.
Are you serious? Here is the second sentence of the post you are referencing: "So protons will be part of the end game along with the leptons." To me that leaves protons and the leptons not falling into black holes.phinds said:No, my point is not that black holes would not recycle them ... I'm not even commenting on that. My point is that they aren't going to fall into black holes in the first place.
Why do you think everything will go into a black hole at some point?
Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.alexg said:Magnetic confinement is used, not to prevent the antimatter for falling upward, but to keep it from contact with normal matter.
Antimatter does not have reverse gravity.
ynot1 said:Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.
Really? Check out http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p16_s1?isAuthorized=no&view=printalexg said:What are you talking about? There is no antimatter held in the Van Allen belt. Where do you come up with this?
That is interesting. It means when stars collapse to form black holes they lose about 50% of their mass from their protons which don't fall into the black hole.ynot1 said:Are you serious? Here is the second sentence of the post you are referencing: "So protons will be part of the end game along with the leptons." To me that leaves protons and the leptons not falling into black holes.
ynot1 said:Note matter attracts matter and I should think antimatter attracts antimatter. Also like charges repel. Therefore clouds of charged particles exist in a stable configuration, if such is possible, only if the gravitational attraction is balanced by electrostatic repulsion. If this isn't possible then my idea about clouds of electrons and positrons sinks. However if it is possible then the stable configurations would allow spacetime to shed its entropy. More nonsense I guess.
ynot1 said:I believe it has been noted already. If antimatter didn't possesses reverse gravity (or positive gravity, for that matter) on the surface of the Earth they wouldn't have to use magnetic confinement. In orbit, now that would be an interesting experiment.
ynot1 said:I don't think like charges will ever be attracted by gravity and so this idea sinks. However it suggests a possible mechanism for CP violation in pair production - the gravitational field.
ynot1 said:However note protons do attract protons at subatomic distances per
ynot1 said:That is interesting. It means when stars collapse to form black holes they lose about 50% of their mass from their protons which don't fall into the black hole.
ynot1 said:Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.
Yes except antimatter travels in reverse time. So its electrical and gravitational charge (actually curvature in spacetime) are reversed. Same electromagnetic laws, same gravitational laws, only in reverse time. Note opposite charges curve in opposite directions in an electromagnetic field. I assume matter and antimatter do the same in a gravitational field. It's a matter of symmetry, actually. Sorry about all those obscure posts. I'll try to make them more understandable. Thanks.Drakkith said:Why would this be strange? Antimatter is charged and obeys the same electromagnetic laws that normal matter does. It is far from strange.
ynot1 said:Yes except antimatter travels in reverse time. So its electrical and gravitational charge (actually curvature in spacetime) are reversed. Same electromagnetic laws, same gravitational laws, only in reverse time. Sorry about all those obscure posts. I'll try to make them more understandable. Thanks.
Sorry about the standard model. I'd really prefer to go with Einstein, Feynman, and Dirac, if you don't mind.Drakkith said:No, the standard view is that it does NOT travel backwards in time. Please, try to learn the standard view of physics before jumping into things that are "beyond" the standard model. Just because one physicist says that the math shows it might travel backwards in time does not mean it is true.
Per your reference,Dremmer said:the transition of the universe from the degenerate era to the black hole era and finally to the dark era depends upon whether or not proton decay occurs. If it occurs, it will be relatively soon, if it doesn't occur, it will be much much longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
I believe instances of time reversal are quite common in particle physics as used in Feynman diagrams.Chronos said:But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.
On macroscopic scales such time reversals are possible but very improbable per Feynman. Feynman goes on to explain how a mechanical ticking clock can run backwards. He says there's no physical laws to prevent this, and explains exactly how it could happen. The laws of probability (for example, thermodynamics) are not laws of physics. Note however that Feynman explains time reversibility using causality (how you would explain anything with anti-causality mystifies me). Ergo the arrows of time or causality point in both directions. Antimatter is just as much subject to causality as matter.Chronos said:But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.
Yes I think I mentioned something about that with the Feynman diagrams.Chronos said:Er, so do you have an actual observation to cite as opposed to theoretical possibilites?
