Are Void Centers Ultra-Massive Primordial Black Holes?

[David Paul]

Utter conjecture;-

We see superclusters forming mass filaments along the 'edges' of poincare-like manifolds. The seemingly dodecahedral structures present in our universe may have been created on the edges of simple geometric 'kissing' surfaces (sphere packing) where the edges would represent zones of energy minima. I suggest it was here that matter 'condensed' from BH wave-state expansion.

If voids in our universe start from a central point (in relation to the 'edge' superclustering as per dodecahedral substructure) all void centres within our universe may in fact be ultra-massive primordial black holes;- mini universes in their own right.

Proof of these would involve looking across space from our part of the universe through an extrapolated point representing our void centre ... outwards, beyond to the far side filament superclusters.

My prediction;- a huge gravitational lensing effect might be seen.

 

[David Paul]

To get my drift, have a gander @ this:

Perhaps dark energy/cosmic expansion is simply an affect of a big crunch?

Allow me to elucidate;- When a 'crunch' condenses below its Schwarzschild Radius, I propose a duality is formed, being the Lorentz Transform imaginary (complex number) values associated with <Sr distances.

We know time = 0 at an event horizon; therefore, beneath this 'boundary', t becomes a dualistic positive/negative ... basically, the inner convergence co-manifests as a recursive, out-riding expansion. This suggests our universe may indeed be cyclic /wavicle like, and delightfully explains why the expansion rate is steadily increasing, as the condensing crunch would produce exponetially increasing t/ti values.

Even wilder speculation;- I believe every particle, even the humble photon may obey this simple process; albeit, of differing singularity class composition (implying - the universe is just another particle, but of high order singularity composition, possibly n dimensional hypertorus).

Energy convergence with regards to a photon, ultimately produces a singularity via its very own Schwarzschild radius (albeit at extremely small scale distance) i.e;- If a photons relativistic mass (hf/c^2 - yes I know photons do not possesses mass!) is substituted for M in calculating a Schwarzschild Radius: 2GM/C^2. This photon, say in the visible spectrum (around 600 THz) would produce a figure of about 10^-62 meters ... totally smaller than Planck length!

The photonic cycle is one of 720° (360° positive/ 360° negative), in which convergence and expansion co-exist simultaneously. Expansion above the Sr can be thought of as the magnetic component. Similarly, condensation beneath; manifests as the electric component; thus, this duality operates with 180° phase differential, perfectly matching/describing electromagnetism, with each switching identities @ the Sr 'boundary'.

Musing on ... your average photon cycles a tad more rapidly than our universe, say 300Ghz compared to maybe once in a trillion years - how can this be so? ... well, it's all to do with dimensionality. With increasing dimensionality, energy is sprawled about exponentially thinner.

So what of our universe?

A cosmos of high order dimensionality may have energy spread out rather sparse ... it's energy concentration that determines frequency i.e;- low energy photons cycle slower than high ones.

Multiverse theory predicts a headsplatteringly large number of parallel universes (>10^500);- So what if our cosmos manifests as merely one 1 'super-positioned', self interacting wavicle of varying dimensionality/phase? ... could it be that we're actually all part of this multiverse already?

In 1922, Ray Cummings scribed;- "Time, is what keeps everything from happening at once" ... Perhaps space, similarly, is that which allows all possible states to occur @ once?

This type of thinking suggests everything in the universe is all inextricably connected, and from a far higher dimensional viewpoint is but one solitary thing

 

[David Paul]

It really 'warms my cockles' that Spacetime Analogues are coming of popular interest.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm sorry, are you asking questions or proposing a theory? Either way your posts don't seem to be following PF rules.

 

[Chronos]

I believe the saying is time is what keeps everything from happening at once and space is what keeps everything from happening in the same place.

 

[David Paul]

I believe the saying is time is what keeps everything from happening at once and space is what keeps everything from happening in the same place.

Indeed;- Pauli exclusion in action.

 

[David Paul]

I'm sorry, are you asking questions or proposing a theory? Either way your posts don't seem to be following PF rules.

I was 'angling' for something within the grey shades of forum post acceptability;- very sorry to have over-stepped the mark.

Dave.

 

[Radrook]

According to the following source, a satisfactory theoretical consensus involving the theory of hierarchal clustering has been reached in reference to explaining this phenomenon.

COSMOS - The SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy › G


Astronomers believe that voids are formed by the hierarchical clustering of galaxies around primordial density fluctuations (quantum mechanical fluctuations in the density of the Universe in the very first moments following the Big Bang). It is thought that as the matter built up around regions of higher density in the early Universe, matter was lost from the lower density regions - a process which lowered the densities in these regions even further. These low density regions are what we see today as voids.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Voids

BTW
Interestingly our galaxy has been found to be at the very edge of the local void which results in a very spectacular velocity of 600,000 mph away from it. The article states that such an unusual velocity away from the void strongly indicates that our local void is extremely large and devoid of dark matter.

I would say that it indicates that it is devoid of sufficient dark matter to overcome the gravitational attraction from the superclusters that are pulling us away and not necessarily devoid of all dark matter. Such a conclusion seems rather unjustified considering that what dark matter is is unknown. Concluding that a lack of spectacular gravitational influence is conclusive evidence of total absence of dark matter is scientifically unjustified.

Milky Way moving away from void
Provided by the Institute of Astronomy, Honolulu, HawaiiPublished: June 12, 2007

http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2007/06/Milky Way moving away from void.aspx

 

[Drakkith]

I would say that it indicates that it is devoid of sufficient dark matter to overcome the gravitational attraction from the superclusters that are pulling us away and not necessarily devoid of all dark matter. Such a conclusion seems rather unjustified considering that what dark matter is is unknown. Concluding that a lack of spectacular gravitational influence is conclusive evidence of total absence of dark matter is scientifically unjustified.

Who/what said there was total absence of dark matter in voids?

 

[Radrook]

Who/what said there was total absence of dark matter in voids?

Neither of the two sources nor anyone quoted in those sources I provided links for said it.

 

[Drakkith]

Neither of the two sources nor anyone quoted in those sources I provided links for.

Then what are you talking about in regards to total absence of dark matter in voids?

 

[Radrook]

Then what are you talking about in regards to total absence of dark matter in voids?

Can you please point out which sentence is causing the confusion. Because try as I may I can't seem to locate any obscurity in my statement that would lead to perplexity in regards to meaning.

 

[Chronos]

If you try get rid of dark energy by using giant voids, and be compatible with CMB temperature fluctuations, the voids must both be very large and very empty to avoid a positively curved universe.

 

[Radrook]

If you try get rid of dark energy by using giant voids, and be compatible with CMB temperature fluctuations, the voids must both be very large and very empty to avoid a positively curved universe.

The article concludes that the absence of dark matter is the cause of our galaxy's moving away from the local void's rim at 600,000 mph. I only took umbrage with the logic behind that statement because it appears to be fallacious for several reasons. One of which is the presupposition that dark matter either exerts sufficient force from within a void to stop a galaxy from being pulled away, or it isn't present at all. Which arbitrarily excludes the possibility of its presence within the void but in insufficient quantity to prevent the galaxy from moving away from the void's rim as delineated by super cluster filaments under the influence of a gravitational attractor.


Dark matter could in fact be present within the void but in too tenuous a degree or else in too far a distance to affect our galaxy that way. To me that comes across as as saying that because I am not prevented from leaving a stadium in a metalic vehicle by magnetism there is absolutely no magnetism present. The fact is that there might indeed be a strong magnet force force in the stadium but I am simply too far from it or else there is magnetism present but in insufficient quantity.

BTW
It is the milky way's proper motion in relation to the supercluster voidal rim and not the distancing of the filamentary rim itself from other supercluster rims caused by universal expansion that is being referred to. But that expansion also only proves that the void has infufficent dark matter to prevent expansion and not that there is a total lack of it.

 

[Drakkith]

Can you please point out which sentence is causing the confusion. Because try as I may I can't seem to locate any obscurity in my statement that would lead to perplexity in regards to meaning.

The part I quoted in post 9.

Concluding that a lack of spectacular gravitational influence is conclusive evidence of total absence of dark matter is scientifically unjustified

 

[Radrook]

The part I quoted in post 9.

It means that the conclusion they are reaching has a faulty premise. I elaborate on that in post 14.

 

[Drakkith]

Can you please point out which sentence is causing the confusion. Because try as I may I can't seem to locate any obscurity in my statement that would lead to perplexity in regards to meaning.

Ok, I think I found what you were talking about in the last paragraph for your 2nd link above. All I can say is that I doubt they actually mean 100% empty of everything. Perhaps they mean that the void is so large and so empty that it can be thought of as being completely void of all matter and dark matter, even if there is a very small amount. But that's really just a guess.