The End of the Universe: A Black Hole Solution?

  • Thread starter Abidal Sala
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Universe
In summary, Sean Carroll believes that all matter will eventually end up in black holes. This is a surprising assertion, as most matter in galaxies will eventually decay away. However, the math behind this assertion is shaky, and it is unclear what will happen after all matter has been sucked into black holes.
  • #1
Abidal Sala
30
0
If we proposed that the universe is expanding forever, will black holes eventually get rid of all ordinary matter? and what remains of the universe is just dark matter and dark energy ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
There are multiple ideas as to the ultimate fate of the universe such as the heat death.
jadeturners said:
I am not looking forward to witnessing the end of the universe. It's just so horrible.
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.
 
  • #4
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.

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.
 
  • #5
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.
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.
 
  • #6
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.

Why I would think so isn't relevant. I was already shot down. The actual question is why did Sean M Carroll say it would.

EDiT: I actually read that link. It says 1-10% of a galaxy's content will end up in the black hole. The rest will be flung out into empty space and decay into photons.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
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!
 
  • #8
Wouldn't orbital energy be radiated away over huge timescales by gravity waves?
 
  • #9
There are several effects at play. Stellar winds, accretion rate's of matter etc. But over long timescales black holes mostly grow until the CMB cools sufficiently at which point Hawking radiation will dominate.
 
  • #10
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!
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.
 
  • #11
While most mass may eventually reside in black holes, it is unlikely all of it has this destiny. Even an extraordinarily thin gruel of matter dispersed throughout space creates havoc with most bounce models - unless you are willing to settle for gazillion of years between bounces.
 
  • #12
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 sorry, none of this makes any sense.
 
  • #13
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.

"As I see it" and "I suspect" are not helpful arguments and your statements are utter nonsense. Read some physics.
 
  • #14
phinds said:
"As I see it" and "I suspect" are not helpful arguments and your statements are utter nonsense. Read some physics.
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?
 
  • #15
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?
The Van de Graff generator is used as an analogy of the universe after the black holes have long gone. Sorry for the confusion.

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.
 
  • #16
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.
I understand even the proton decays, but before that time it would most likely be recycled by a black hole.
 
  • #17
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.

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.
 
  • #18
ynot1 said:
I understand even the proton decays, but before that time it would most likely be recycled by a black hole.

WHY? Where do you get this nonsense?
 
  • #19
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
phinds said:
WHY? Where do you get this nonsense?

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.
 
  • #21
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
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?

Yep.
 
  • #23
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Antimatter has been created and stored for as long as 16 minutes.

If antimatter possesed reverse gravity, it would have been noted already.
 
  • #25
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.

Gravity is an attractive force...
 
  • #26
ibysaiyan said:
Gravity is an attractive force...
The point of debate is for antimatter.
 
  • #27
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
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.
Magnetic confinement in orbit might be a good idea though. Just in case.
 
  • #29
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.
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.
 
  • #30
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.
However note protons do attract protons at subatomic distances per
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
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.

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.
 
  • #32
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.
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.
 
  • #33
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.

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.
 
  • #34
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.

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?
 
  • #35
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?
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.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is a black hole and how does it relate to the end of the universe?</h2><p>A black hole is a region in space where the gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. As a result, it is essentially invisible to our telescopes. Some theories suggest that as the universe expands, more and more matter will be pulled into black holes, eventually leading to the end of the universe.</p><h2>2. Will the end of the universe be caused by a single black hole or multiple black holes?</h2><p>It is currently unknown whether the end of the universe will be caused by a single black hole or multiple black holes. Some theories suggest that a single supermassive black hole at the center of the universe could eventually consume all matter, while others propose that multiple smaller black holes could merge and grow in size, eventually consuming everything.</p><h2>3. Can anything escape from a black hole?</h2><p>No, nothing can escape from a black hole once it has passed the event horizon, which is the point of no return. However, some particles can escape through Hawking radiation, a process in which particles are emitted from the black hole's edge.</p><h2>4. How long will it take for the universe to end due to black holes?</h2><p>It is currently impossible to accurately predict how long it will take for the universe to end due to black holes. Some theories suggest that it could take trillions of years, while others propose it could happen in a matter of seconds.</p><h2>5. Is there any way to prevent the end of the universe caused by black holes?</h2><p>As of now, there is no known way to prevent the end of the universe caused by black holes. However, scientists are continuously studying and researching ways to potentially delay or prevent this outcome.</p>

1. What is a black hole and how does it relate to the end of the universe?

A black hole is a region in space where the gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. As a result, it is essentially invisible to our telescopes. Some theories suggest that as the universe expands, more and more matter will be pulled into black holes, eventually leading to the end of the universe.

2. Will the end of the universe be caused by a single black hole or multiple black holes?

It is currently unknown whether the end of the universe will be caused by a single black hole or multiple black holes. Some theories suggest that a single supermassive black hole at the center of the universe could eventually consume all matter, while others propose that multiple smaller black holes could merge and grow in size, eventually consuming everything.

3. Can anything escape from a black hole?

No, nothing can escape from a black hole once it has passed the event horizon, which is the point of no return. However, some particles can escape through Hawking radiation, a process in which particles are emitted from the black hole's edge.

4. How long will it take for the universe to end due to black holes?

It is currently impossible to accurately predict how long it will take for the universe to end due to black holes. Some theories suggest that it could take trillions of years, while others propose it could happen in a matter of seconds.

5. Is there any way to prevent the end of the universe caused by black holes?

As of now, there is no known way to prevent the end of the universe caused by black holes. However, scientists are continuously studying and researching ways to potentially delay or prevent this outcome.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
727
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
878
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
1K
Back
Top