Exploring the Possibility of an Expanding Universe Beyond Black Holes

[Kat007]

I was wondering if someone agrees:

Is it possible that on the other side of the black hole is an expanding universe? It seems an iteresting idea to me: in our universe a star collapses onto itself with an explosion, creating a black hole and on the other side a big bang happens with matter sucked in from our side, falling out on 'the other side'.. If nothing can escape the black hole it must be going somewhere...

A separate question: does a mass of the black hole keep increasing throught it's life? And does the black hole ever 'die'?

 

[vandegg]

A separate question: does a mass of the black hole keep increasing throught it's life? And does the black hole ever 'die'?

The mass of a black hole is just the mass of everything that has fallen into it (minus hawking radiation), so presumably black holes continue to get bigger throughout their life.

There is a way black holes can lose their mass, via hawking radiation. Black holes which are too small will eventually evaporate. This happens when the rate of energy radiated is larger than the rate of matter the black hole is absorbing. The temperature of a this radiation is inversely proportional to the size of the black hole. At some point a black hole will become so large (and so cold) that it will absorb from the background radiation of the universe more than it can radiate and so will only get bigger.

I have heard theories about our universe being inside a black hole or whatever. Everything i just said is completely theoretical and no one has any idea what happens inside of a black hole so it is hard to say anything meaningful about it right now.

 

[Kat007]

Thank you for your reply, that's interesting to know.
I hope someone can comment on the first part of my post also. Interested to see the opinions out there.

 

[Calluuuum]

In a sense your separate question contradicts your initial thought. You asked about if a Black hole's mass can grow, if it did that means it's retaining the mass it absorbs. If it retains mass it absorbs, it can't be losing it to the "other universe" that was created. If it was losing any kind of mass to this new universe, it would be small and/or insignificant. With no mass being lost to the new universe (which would be lost as energy most likely), the universe wouldn't be able to sustain it's expansion.

 

[Kat007]

Very good point! :) Oh, I thought I had such a good idea :) maybe not.
Thank you for your comments!

 

[piinthesky]

This question(s) may be too speculative for the forum and it is certainly a bit convoluted. However, I will ask it anyway since it is a paradox that has been perplexing me for almost two years. It is this:

If there is such a thing as a graviton having both wave and particle attributes and it travels at the speed of light, how can it escape the gravitational field of a black hole? You can see the paradox here, at least it seems to be a paradox to me. Gravitation being the sine qua non of the black hole singularity, how could the absolute space-time distortion it demands allow the graviton to escape and create the black hole's gravitational field?

 

[Kat007]

[QUOTE Black holes which are too small will eventually evaporate.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to ask about this bit actually, so why all the chaos about the CERN doing their experiments? I mean, ok it might create very small black holes, but if they are small they should just evaporate right?

 

[nismaratwork]

[QUOTE Black holes which are too small will eventually evaporate.

I'd like to ask about this bit actually, so why all the chaos about the CERN doing their experiments? I mean, ok it might create very small black holes, but if they are small they should just evaporate right?[/QUOTE]

They should before they have a chance to begin accreting matter, but stellar mass BHs will wait a very very VERY long time for Hawking Radiation to be a factor, until the universe cools. Until then, it's a one way trip into the hole, and if HR is real, what comes out has nothing to do with what fell in, unless that information is somehow in the event horizon.

 

[Kat007]

And as for the previous question, very interesting. I've read something up on it, here is the extract (it is from this link: http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.4.FAQ).

Check out he last paragraph in particular:

"Subject: D.09 How can gravity escape from a black hole?
Author: Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu>,
Steve Carlip <carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu>

In a classical point of view, this question is based on an incorrect
picture of gravity. Gravity is just the manifestation of spacetime
curvature, and a black hole is just a certain very steep puckering
that captures anything that comes too closely. Ripples in the
curvature travel along in small undulatory packs (radiation---see
D.05), but these are an optional addition to the gravitation that is
already around. In particular, black holes don't need to radiate to
have the fields that they do. Once formed, they and their gravity
just are.

In a quantum point of view, though, it's a good question. We don't
yet have a good quantum theory of gravity, and it's risky to predict
what such a theory will look like. But we do have a good theory of
quantum electrodynamics, so let's ask the same question for a charged
black hole: how can a such an object attract or repel other charged
objects if photons can't escape from the event horizon?

The key point is that electromagnetic interactions (and gravity, if
quantum gravity ends up looking like quantum electrodynamics) are
mediated by the exchange of *virtual* particles. This allows a
standard loophole: virtual particles can pretty much "do" whatever they
like, including traveling faster than light, so long as they disappear
before they violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The black hole event horizon is where normal matter (and forces) must
exceed the speed of light in order to escape, and thus are trapped.
The horizon is meaningless to a virtual particle with enough speed.
In particular, a charged black hole is a source of virtual photons
that can then do their usual virtual business with the rest of the
universe. Once again, we don't know for sure that quantum gravity
will have a description in terms of gravitons, but if it does, the
same loophole will apply---gravitational attraction will be mediated
by virtual gravitons, which are free to ignore a black hole event
horizon."

 

[Kat007]

[QUOTE stellar mass BHs will wait a very very VERY long time for Hawking Radiation to be a factor... QUOTE]

Sorry could you please clarify: you are referring to stellar black holes, but the ones in question at CERN are 'quantum black holes', so how does what you said relate to that please?

 

[Calluuuum]

Remember Kat, the panic about the mini black holes was just hype from the media and the public not actually knowing anything about it. They just hear "Black holes = doomsday" and suddenly everyone's repeating it, without actually finding out more about it themselves. The mini black holes would evapourate and do no damage at all, actually it would be nice to get some data about black holes. (;

 

[Kat007]

OK cool cool, good to know!

 

[ThomasEdison]

I'd like to ask about this bit actually, so why all the chaos about the CERN doing their experiments? I mean, ok it might create very small black holes, but if they are small they should just evaporate right?

They should before they have a chance to begin accreting matter, but stellar mass BHs will wait a very very VERY long time for Hawking Radiation to be a factor, until the universe cools. Until then, it's a one way trip into the hole, and if HR is real, what comes out has nothing to do with what fell in, unless that information is somehow in the event horizon.[/QUOTE]

I would add a few more VERY's. The large black holes (assuming the idea of Hawking radiation is correct) take such a long time to fizzle out that the entire timeline of the Universe is skewed towards such large numbers that the Universe's age now appears like nothing.
The numbers I've seen thrown out were something on the order of 10^74th years for a black hole's life expectancy!

 

[Kat007]

[QUOTE The numbers I've seen thrown out were something on the order of 10^74th years for a black hole's life expectancy![/QUOTE]

WOW! That is astonishing... Never knew that!

 

[nismaratwork]

They should before they have a chance to begin accreting matter, but stellar mass BHs will wait a very very VERY long time for Hawking Radiation to be a factor, until the universe cools. Until then, it's a one way trip into the hole, and if HR is real, what comes out has nothing to do with what fell in, unless that information is somehow in the event horizon.

I would add a few more VERY's. The large black holes (assuming the idea of Hawking radiation is correct) take such a long time to fizzle out that the entire timeline of the Universe is skewed towards such large numbers that the Universe's age now appears like nothing.
The numbers I've seen thrown out were something on the order of 10^74th years for a black hole's life expectancy![/QUOTE]

Indeedy, but unfortunately I had run out of very's for the day, and so my point may have been lost.

 

[ThomasEdison]

I would add a few more VERY's. The large black holes (assuming the idea of Hawking radiation is correct) take such a long time to fizzle out that the entire timeline of the Universe is skewed towards such large numbers that the Universe's age now appears like nothing.
The numbers I've seen thrown out were something on the order of 10^74th years for a black hole's life expectancy!

Indeedy, but unfortunately I had run out of very's for the day, and so my point may have been lost. [/QUOTE]

I'll correct myself the only link I can currently find says 1.2 x 10^67 years.http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Black/Holes.htm
I did read 10^74 somewhere I know it.

Wiki for Heat Death timeline of the Universe says a Galaxy mass Black hole has a 10^100 year life expectancy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Death

My point though is this:
People tend to think that the Universe is ancient at 13 billion and some change years old. They are wrong. Compared to a human life 13 billion years is inconcievable ; but compared to a black hole's life 13 billion years is almost nothing.
The black holes might very well be the most common form that matter resides in now.

It's a brand spankin new Universe from a Black Hole's perspective.

 

[Chronos]

I wouldn't much worry about the LHC. Cosmic rays have bombarded the Earth's atmosphere with no ill effects for billions of years. Their energies are far greater than the LHC can match.

 

[Kat007]

I just find the whole concept so strange... This space time distortion to the point of such extreme shape.

Hey do you know much about the dark energy? That one is quite intriguing as well. It accounts for so much mass in the universe that just makes you wonder... I mean normal matter only accounts for 5% of total mass! (70 - dark energy, 25 - dark matter).. That's crazy, just shows we only know about 5% of stuff really!

Do you think it also has particle-wave duality?

 

[Kat007]

I wouldn't much worry about the LHC. Cosmic rays have bombarded the Earth's atmosphere with no ill effects for billions of years. Their energies are far greater than the LHC can match.

Yes a very good point.

 

[nismaratwork]

Indeedy, but unfortunately I had run out of very's for the day, and so my point may have been lost.

I'll correct myself the only link I can currently find says 1.2 x 10^67 years.http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Black/Holes.htm
I did read 10^74 somewhere I know it.

Wiki for Heat Death timeline of the Universe says a Galaxy mass Black hole has a 10^100 year life expectancy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Death

My point though is this:
People tend to think that the Universe is ancient at 13 billion and some change years old. They are wrong. Compared to a human life 13 billion years is inconcievable ; but compared to a black hole's life 13 billion years is almost nothing.
The black holes might very well be the most common form that matter resides in now.

It's a brand spankin new Universe from a Black Hole's perspective.[/QUOTE]

No argument from me, stellar generations have nothing on the lifespan of stellar-mass and larger black holes.

 

[George Jones]

I'll correct myself the only link I can currently find says 1.2 x 10^67 years.http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Black/Holes.htm
I did read 10^74 somewhere I know it.

Yes, it is easy to find numbers that differ by several orders of magnitudes. See posts #3 and #4 in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205711.

On Monday, I'll have a brief look in my books to see if I can find an accurate number.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, it is easy to find numbers that differ by several orders of magnitudes. See posts #3 and #4 in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205711.

On Monday, I'll have a brief look in my books to see if I can find an accurate number.

Thanks very much, I look forward to this. It is interesting to consider a space largely filled with radiation and sloooooooooooooooooooowly evaporating black holes, especially the super-massive variates, which of course will do so even slower than their stellar-mass cousins. If there is no "big crunch" as it seems safe to assume, we're existing during a very brief period during which we can observe these monsters at work.

 

[ThomasEdison]

Yes, it is easy to find numbers that differ by several orders of magnitudes. See posts #3 and #4 in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205711.

On Monday, I'll have a brief look in my books to see if I can find an accurate number.

I would also be interested in knowing just what percent of all known mass in the Universe (I mean excluding dark matter) resides in Black Holes compared to the rest of everything else (stars, planets and stellar dust and asteriods and you and me.)

I remember a Science show I saw recently where the narrator claimed that not only did all matter that exists now come from a singularity in the Big Bang, but in addition to that, most matter that exists now is inside Black Holes and we are the exception to that. I like that sort of perspective; its why I love science.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would also be interested in knowing just what percent of all known mass in the Universe (I mean excluding dark matter) resides in Black Holes compared to the rest of everything else (stars, planets and stellar dust and asteriods and you and me.)

I remember a Science show I saw recently where the narrator claimed that not only did all matter that exists now come from a singularity in the Big Bang, but in addition to that, most matter that exists now is inside Black Holes and we are the exception to that. I like that sort of perspective; its why I love science.

CMB observations do not support the notion that we are inside a black hole, and the nature of what formed the basis of the BB is really not within the realm of current physics.

 

[ThomasEdison]

CMB observations do not support the notion that we are inside a black hole, and the nature of what formed the basis of the BB is really not within the realm of current physics.

I never implied that.
I'll be more clear.
I meant this:
If you add up the mass of all black holes in the Universe presently then add up the mass of everything else (ignore dark matter.) objects like planets and stars and interstellar gases. Compare the two numbers against each other.
How much mass is within all the black holes compared to everything else?
I'm trying to understand whether or not the "normal" most common state for anything to exist as is within a Black hole and if matter outside of one is a peculiar state of affairs.
In other words is the phenomina of a Black hole actually the standard form for matter/energy in the Universe to become and everything else just an odd transitionary fluke?
I realize that in time Black holes dominate with their long lifespans at least compared to everything else by a huge margin; but I was also asking about mass.

Is most of the mass of the Universe now currently within all the various black holes that occupy it?

 

[jimgraber]

I never implied that.
I'll be more clear.
I meant this:
If you add up the mass of all black holes in the Universe presently then add up the mass of everything else (ignore dark matter.) objects like planets and stars and interstellar gases. Compare the two numbers against each other.
How much mass is within all the black holes compared to everything else?
I'm trying to understand whether or not the "normal" most common state for anything to exist as is within a Black hole and if matter outside of one is a peculiar state of affairs.
In other words is the phenomina of a Black hole actually the standard form for matter/energy in the Universe to become and everything else just an odd transitionary fluke?
I realize that in time Black holes dominate with their long lifespans at least compared to everything else by a huge margin; but I was also asking about mass.

Is most of the mass of the Universe now currently within all the various black holes that occupy it?

Short answer: No, more like one part in a thousand is in black holes.
Longer answer: The black holes in the center of most large galaxies are of order 1/1000 the total mass. There are also stellar mass black holes. Again (coincidence) about one out of a thousand stars is a black hole, or there is one stellar mass black hole for very roughly, every thousand stars. Stellar mass black holes seem to be about 7-10 solar masses or more than ten times as massive as the average star. But stars are only .5% of the mass in the universe. My best guess is .1 to 1% of the observed mass is in black holes, but uncertainties are high.

Jim Graber

 

[ThomasEdison]

So there could be more matter inside Black holes than in Stars and planets? But the dust and stray particles in between is where most mass in the universe is? (Excluding Dark Matter) What about Quazars? Wouldn't they offset the the mass placement towards black holes when compared to Stars?

I thought it was like this: There are possibly smaller short lived black holes (may or may not exist no proof there yet), then stellar black holes (from stars much larger than the sun which we are certain of), then Galactic black holes (which reside in the center of galaxies) then Quazars (similiar to the last ones just even more massive.) Or am I missing something?

All of those added together is more than the mass of all the suns and planets ; but not interstellar, intergalactic tiny scrapnel and dust and gas?

I'll repeat that I am not counting Dark matter (which I assume is not made of black holes.) I only do that because there is no consensus on what the stuff is and I prefer to relate to known objects.

 

[Chronos]

Gravitational lensing studies suggest black holes are relatively scarce in the universe. This is consistent with other mass surveys. We know some very massive black holes formed in the early universe and probably seeded galaxay formation. We also know from numerous studies the vast majority of mass in the universe cannot be accounted for by black holes.

 

[Kat007]

So any ideas on where all this mass came from in the first place? It just doesn't make sense that it was from one point, this singulatory... I know we say nothing existed before the Big Bang, not even time... but can't help but wonder what was BEFORE the BB? Why did it happen??

 

[nismaratwork]

So any ideas on where all this mass came from in the first place? It just doesn't make sense that it was from one point, this singulatory... I know we say nothing existed before the Big Bang, not even time... but can't help but wonder what was BEFORE the BB? Why did it happen??

That is a question for metaphysics and philosophy, not current physics.

 

[Kat007]

Well, I was wondering what we know in current physics, it was not meant as philosophy qn... That is why I asked my initial question, was just an idea.

 

[untiltwilight]

I was wondering if someone agrees:
Is it possible that on the other side of the black hole is an expanding universe? It seems an iteresting idea to me: in our universe a star collapses onto itself with an explosion, creating a black hole and on the other side a big bang happens with matter sucked in from our side, falling out on 'the other side'.. If nothing can escape the black hole it must be going somewhere...

A separate question: does a mass of the black hole keep increasing throught it's life? And does the black hole ever 'die'?

I definitely think that this is a possibility (that the other side of a black hole is an expanding universe). You'll see a lot of people in physics-related occupations that will tell you "no" or "that's not possible" because they think so analytically about singularity and all of this stuff falling into a black hole... For some reason Newton's third law comes to mind. If all of this matter is falling into a black hole...and space is being warped by this singularity...doesn't it make sense that somewhere (if not on the other side of the black hole), an equal and opposite reaction is occurring? It's certainly not from radiation...it would have to be a reaction just as BIG as the black hole itself, right? Don't think numerically. It's not about numbers. It may seem incredibly simplistic, but sometimes the simplest answer can be the correct one. ;) http://www.beadedlanyards.info

 

[Chronos]

We do not know what lies inside the event horizon of black holes. Other universes, or fairies, are pretty much equal possibilities.