Register to reply

Black hole with antimatter particle singularity

Share this thread:
pibb
#1
Mar9-11, 07:07 PM
P: 12
could a particle of antimatter be the singularity inside a black hole?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Step lightly: All-optical transistor triggered by single photon promises advances in quantum applications
The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems
What time is it in the universe?
JaredJames
#2
Mar9-11, 07:16 PM
P: 3,387
I'm curious what would draw you to such an assumption?

Do you have an article you read this in or is it just something you're thinking about?

Based on current theory, no, antimatter isn't at the centre of a black hole and I don't see how it could be.
pibb
#3
Mar9-11, 07:27 PM
P: 12
watching too much science channel on tv they have been running cosmology and space shows at night this whole week. this is what was on last night.
http://science.discovery.com/tv-sche....25867.36228.x

anyway in one of the episodes they said (or i heard it as) that the big bang formed in the instant when antimatter collided with matter to form our universe. it couldnt have just destroyed everything because we are here made up of some of the leftovers. so i was wondering if its really antimatter that lay at the center of black holes and beyond the visible universe also.

Drakkith
#4
Mar9-11, 07:32 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
Black hole with antimatter particle singularity

I've never heard of anything like that before. As I understand it, antimatter and matter were both created after the big bang, supposedly in equal amounts, and we are searching for the reason why matter dominates the universe instead of annihilating completely with antimatter.
JaredJames
#5
Mar9-11, 07:33 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by pibb View Post
anyway in one of the episodes they said (or i heard it as) that the big bang formed in the instant when antimatter collided with matter to form our universe. it couldnt have just destroyed everything because we are here made up of some of the leftovers. so i was wondering if its really antimatter that lay at the center of black holes and beyond the visible universe also.
TV show aside, how did you get from the big bang to the centre of black holes?

They are two separate entities and I don't see any logic in the connection between the two you've made.

I'm not even sure of this big bang idea regarding matter / antimatter. Sounds like gibberish to me.
pibb
#6
Mar9-11, 07:49 PM
P: 12
thank you both for the quick replies. its fun discussing ideas together. would it even be possible as we know it for antimatter to react in such a way to help cause the big bang yet also be at the center of a black hole? i dont know why i made the connection of the two either it just seemed natural i guess.
Drakkith
#7
Mar9-11, 08:32 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
Quote Quote by pibb View Post
thank you both for the quick replies. its fun discussing ideas together. would it even be possible as we know it for antimatter to react in such a way to help cause the big bang yet also be at the center of a black hole? i dont know why i made the connection of the two either it just seemed natural i guess.
There was no antimatter before the big bang. It took upwards of about a second or so for the universe to cool off enough after the big bang for most particles to form.
pibb
#8
Mar9-11, 11:29 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
There was no antimatter before the big bang. It took upwards of about a second or so for the universe to cool off enough after the big bang for most particles to form.
well antimatter and matter might just be our words for something else that needs more definition. could there big an explosion big enough to be the big bang if a membrane composed of matter and a membrane composed of antimatter bounced against each other?

edit: i like the way this guy smolin explained the big bang. universe reproducing by budding. but then that just makes you wonder well what started the infinity of budding to occur?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7vTQ...eature=related
JaredJames
#9
Mar10-11, 05:16 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by pibb View Post
well antimatter and matter might just be our words for something else that needs more definition.
Matter and anti-matter are well defined. If there is something else it will have it's own descrption.
[QUOTE] could there big an explosion big enough to be the big bang if a membrane composed of matter and a membrane composed of antimatter bounced against each other?

When matter/anti-matter meet they annihilate each other, so no, this couldn't happen.
Naty1
#10
Mar11-11, 03:42 PM
P: 5,632
Matter and antimatter annihilate in accelerators...and as far as we know those incidents don't spawn new universes.....nobody knows what caused the big bang...Big Bang inflation and are theories that come AFTER the initial big bang singulairty....another newer theory is the cyclic universe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory

a book on this is the ENDLESS UNIVERSE by Steinhardt and Turok....mentioned in the wiki article and is very interesting..it eliminates the need for an intial bang...but doesn't really explain why such an endless cycle of births of universes is so natural...but the mechanisms seem to be there and evidence confirming or denying this theory (in contrast to the Big Bang model) may be found in micowave background radiation satellite evidence....no such evidence so far....
Drakkith
#11
Mar11-11, 03:56 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
Again, remember that the Big Bang wasn't an "Explosion in space" that resulted from some sort of huge annihilation or anything. It was simply the point in time where all of space was compressed into a very small point and expanded from there. Because of this, until space had expanded enough, all matter and energy was compressed into a very small area, heated to temperatures so high they are unimaginable. Until space expanded and all this stuff cooled down, nothing was able to form. No matter, no antimatter, nothing at first.
czes
#12
Mar12-11, 03:27 AM
P: 216
Could someone explain me:
Almost all Black Holes are rotating and have a magnetic field.
There are particles and antiparticles created in the huge strong gravitational field because of the acceleration like in the CERN collider.
According to the spin polarization the particles go up and antiparticles go down.
Does it mean the magnetic field of the BH separates antimatter from the matter like in CERN magnetic trap ?
PraoWolf
#13
Apr27-11, 01:26 AM
P: 7
You know I was watching Wonders of the Universe, and was thinking about black holes and the singularity at the core. Which also got me thinking what if the singularity is a massively dense core of antimatter. We have white dwarfs which are essentially super condensed matter, would a black hole not be similar to a black dwarf and be almost a region of anti-universe. Which would explain why there isn't enough antimatter to matter ratio and why matter tends to gravitate towards these black holes while antimatter is pushed out at near light speed. In black holes the idea is NOTHING escapes, but there's the beam of light at the end, we already know that when matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other, leaving only 2 photons left. What if this process isn't as clear cut, since the super density of the "black dwarf" (so to speak) nearly changes the rules of physics, essentially a black hole (in my idea) is an area of "anti-universe" essentially, as Prof Brian Cox says "our knowledge of physics breaks down at the center of a black hole because everything become infinitely dense" due to the nature of space time. Which would explain why accretion disks exist in the way they do and and would also explain the reason why antimatter is so sparsely spread out and seems to hang around near black holes in large quantities. Almost as if the super dense collision of matter/antimatter create near random combinations of matter and antimatter spitting out from the black hole itself. So essentially the core of a black hole is not the break down of physical laws but a complete antithesis to the universe as we know it. It's simply a complete reversal of all physical laws once anything reaches the singularity and once the process is complete (due to the nature of spacetime and time's arrow) it comes back into the normal universe as forced out from the black hole itself. From what I know antimatter is intrinsically attracted to matter and vice versa, if antimatter were that dense at the core of a black hole's singularity it would attract matter nearly exponentially fast till it approaches near light speed and would achieve a sort of terminal velocity in respect to the black hole.

I know it's a long winded way of explaining it, I'm not a physicist but I am quite well read, and believe I have a good handle on physics, I'm actually impressed someone had the idea too which is why I'm posting except with my own unique take on the matter. This theory I have would essentially simplify alot of processes (which the true nature of science tends to be towards a complex simplicity of natural laws) and would help answer some of the questions about black holes, and other bodies, and may actually explain gravity itself. We know gravity is essentially just pockets of spacetime, like valleys, where objects essentially "fall" into them, but this could also make gravity a byproduct of antimatter. Like I said long winded I know and there may be grave holes in my way of thinking, and I would welcome some observations or insights into my ideas, I'm always open to criticism. But to me this just makes too much sense, and not based of intuition but based on the way we already know our universe works.

Thanks for reading! =)

PraoWolf
negru
#14
Apr27-11, 01:41 AM
P: 308
Matter and anti-matter act in the same way with respect to gravity. As a general rule, before coming up with complicated theories, try to make sure that each step in your argument is correct.
Drakkith
#15
Apr27-11, 02:02 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
We have white dwarfs which are essentially super condensed matter, would a black hole not be similar to a black dwarf and be almost a region of anti-universe.
A black dwarf is simply a white dwarf that has cooled down to near background temperatures. It has NOTHING to do with black holes. I don't know where you got this idea of "anti-universe" from, but there is no such thing in the view of mainstream science.

Which would explain why there isn't enough antimatter to matter ratio and why matter tends to gravitate towards these black holes while antimatter is pushed out at near light speed.
Antimatter isn't pushed out from a black hole.

In black holes the idea is NOTHING escapes, but there's the beam of light at the end, we already know that when matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other, leaving only 2 photons left
What beam of light are you talking about?

Which would explain why accretion disks exist in the way they do and and would also explain the reason why antimatter is so sparsely spread out and seems to hang around near black holes in large quantities
How does any of what you said explain the way accretion disks form? Also, where did you hear that antimatter hangs out in large quantities around black holes?

So essentially the core of a black hole is not the break down of physical laws but a complete antithesis to the universe as we know it. It's simply a complete reversal of all physical laws once anything reaches the singularity and once the process is complete (due to the nature of spacetime and time's arrow) it comes back into the normal universe as forced out from the black hole itself. From what I know antimatter is intrinsically attracted to matter and vice versa, if antimatter were that dense at the core of a black hole's singularity it would attract matter nearly exponentially fast till it approaches near light speed and would achieve a sort of terminal velocity in respect to the black hole.

First of all, antimatter is NOT attracted to normal matter just because. An electron and an anti-proton would REPULSE, not attract. It is only the fact that a particle and its antiparticle have opposite charges that causes them to attract each other. Just like the proton and electron attract each other.

The fact that black holes exist at all and the length of time that they do shows that nothing drastic has happened to the arrow of time, such as flowing backwards or anything crazy.

This theory I have would essentially simplify alot of processes (which the true nature of science tends to be towards a complex simplicity of natural laws) and would help answer some of the questions about black holes, and other bodies, and may actually explain gravity itself. We know gravity is essentially just pockets of spacetime, like valleys, where objects essentially "fall" into them, but this could also make gravity a byproduct of antimatter.
Is gravity already not a byproduct of antimatter? We already know it's a result of mass (which matter and antimatter both have), so how would your theory be any different?
PraoWolf
#16
Apr27-11, 02:41 AM
P: 7
In regards to the antimatter around black holes, I've literally just read a story on that today

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ilky-way-.html

It was a discovery in 2010 that I've just happened upon. Like I said I know not all of my idea is perfect, I'm far from a physicist, and certain of the ideas are centered around the idea that as most physicists say our understand of the laws of physics breaks down at the singularity of a black hole, my idea is not that the laws break down but simply reverse, akin to a mirror universe but this universe is just looping back on itself once the reversal of laws comes back into a normal universal state. Maybe the "black dwarf" example was a bad one to use, but I simply meant the antithesis of a neutron star or other object with as massive a gravitational field. I should've been more careful in words yes, I apologize as I am at work, and it's 3:22am here. But the "light" from the black hole that I meant centers around

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121701266.html

The jets that stream out, they're visible so must contain some sort of photon to allow us to see this? Also my idea (don't even really want to call it a theory due to the obvious lack of knowledge in certain areas) isn't necessarily to solve anything about gravity but so somehow answer the singularity at the center that is essentially undefined and infinite.

Also in regards to the antimatter being expelled from the black hole via the jet, my line of thinking is not so much "antimatter" itself, like antihelium on antihydrogen, but anti-particles, being ejected out.

In regards to the anti-universe, we already know that alll matter has an anti-matter counterpart, why would the entire universe not have an anti-universal counterpart? Which can only be glimpsed at these "super-sites."

Again I probably shouldn't have said "theory" but more my "idea" of how things could work given the limited knowledge I have but I'm still trying to use absolutes and invariants, so it's not seen as a subjective thing, like weight or speed.

I apologize that some of my terminology wasn't as precise as it should've been, I'm a bit tired and have been thinking about variations of this for most of the day so I was just trying to get it all out in a way that could be discussed, criticized or ridiculed (as the case may be) and I do value all the insights, I'm currently working towards becoming an MD but I do plan to take heavy physics classes as I progress and that should hopefully clarify some of my own terminology and make it easier for me to convey my ideas.
PraoWolf
#17
Apr27-11, 02:54 AM
P: 7
"While Integralís discovery clears up one mystery, it raises a new one. Scientists donít understand how low-mass X-ray binaries could produce enough positrons to explain the cloud, and they also donít know how they escape from these systems. "We expected something unexpected, but we did not expect this," says Skinner. The antimatter is probably produced in a region near the neutron stars and black holes, where powerful magnetic fields launch jets of particles that rip through space at near-light speed."
Drakkith
#18
Apr27-11, 03:49 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
The jets that stream out, they're visible so must contain some sort of photon to allow us to see this? Also my idea (don't even really want to call it a theory due to the obvious lack of knowledge in certain areas) isn't necessarily to solve anything about gravity but so somehow answer the singularity at the center that is essentially undefined and infinite.
The jets are formed from matter in the accretion disk colliding with each other. This produces the jets. They don't come out of the actual black hole itself. Also, the energy from high velocity particles colliding with other particles CAN create antimatter. This is what is happening with your other link. We just didn't expect so much from that particular event. Like the article said, the antimatter is probably produced by high velocity particles accelerated by high strength magnetic fields.

Also in regards to the antimatter being expelled from the black hole via the jet, my line of thinking is not so much "antimatter" itself, like antihelium on antihydrogen, but anti-particles, being ejected out.
Antiparticles ARE antimatter.

In regards to the anti-universe, we already know that alll matter has an anti-matter counterpart, why would the entire universe not have an anti-universal counterpart? Which can only be glimpsed at these "super-sites."
There is no reason to think this, as ALL antimatter can be found in our universe. Some particles are even their own antiparticle, such as the photon. There is a BIG difference in antimatter and an anti-universe.

Again I probably shouldn't have said "theory" but more my "idea" of how things could work given the limited knowledge I have but I'm still trying to use absolutes and invariants, so it's not seen as a subjective thing, like weight or speed.

I apologize that some of my terminology wasn't as precise as it should've been, I'm a bit tired and have been thinking about variations of this for most of the day so I was just trying to get it all out in a way that could be discussed, criticized or ridiculed (as the case may be) and I do value all the insights, I'm currently working towards becoming an MD but I do plan to take heavy physics classes as I progress and that should hopefully clarify some of my own terminology and make it easier for me to convey my ideas.
It's ok, everyone starts somewhere! I apologize if I seemed harsh at all. Text is REALLY bad at conveying all those "hidden" signals that talking in person would.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Black hole singularity Astronomy & Astrophysics 35
What is singularity? [Black Hole ] Astronomy & Astrophysics 15
Black hole matter/antimatter Astronomy & Astrophysics 8
Singularity of a black hole Special & General Relativity 0
Singularity of a black hole Astronomy & Astrophysics 1