Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Black Holes and Dark Energy

  1. Jan 28, 2016 #1
    First of I am not a scientist, just a big fan. So I am sorry for any incorrect terminology. A few years back I remember reading a article on the various theories pertaining to Dark energy. I think it may have been in a Scientific American. After the article was done talking about the most popular theories it briefly mentioned a few other theories that are intriguing but have to yet gained any traction. One of these was that Black holes are creating dark energy. Since I have never come across any more information of such a theory I assume it has a major flaw. I was hoping someone here could point it out so I can stop thinking about it.
    The reason I can not stop thinking about it is because to me it seems to make sense in few ways. First, if particles fall into a black hole they become Non-observable. Particles should not just disappear into a singularity but become infinite Non-observable probability waves? Non-observable expanding waves sounds a lot like Non-observable expanding space (dark energy) to me. 2. I always hear how dark energy seems to be this outside energy penetrating our universe. I also hear how energy disappears from our universe into black holes. But energy is never created (dark energy) or destroyed (black holes). So is it not logical to think that black holes must be the mechanism for turning observable energy (gravity) into non-observable energy (space).
    I have a few other ways in which such a theory makes sense to me. But no point in writing to much for a theory which no traction. So if any one can shed some light on this dark matter it would be much appreciated. thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 28, 2016 #2

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've never heard of this theory and it doesn't seem to make much sense to me, so I'm highly skeptical of it.

    Note that particles disappear behind the event horizon, not the singularity. Also, "infinite non-observable probability waves" doesn't make any sense. The wavefunction of a particle, which I assume is what you're talking about, is already not observable. At least not directly. We can't look at a particle and see its wavefunction.

    It is not the same at all. The expansion of space is a phenomenon whereby the scale of space increases over time. It has nothing to do with waves.

    Extremely unlikely. I've never even heard of this before when discussing dark energy here at PF, so it's unlikely to be a popular idea for cosmologists.

    This is entirely wrong. Energy does not disappear through a black hole.

    It is not. Spacetime is not made of energy and black holes don't turn gravitational potential energy into some mysterious form.

    I'd expand more on what science thinks dark energy is, but I have a class to get to. I'll try to get back to you later.
     
  4. Jan 28, 2016 #3
    Wow. Seems like this idea is way out there. Now I am starting to think maybe I didn't see it in Scientific American. Sounds like something I just may have come across on the internet. LOL. Once again sorry if all the terminology is way off. I only heard the summery and the details came from my own uneducated mind.
     
  5. Jan 28, 2016 #4

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    If matter falls into a star the mass of the star increases. The total energy stays the same.
    If matter falls into a black hole, the mass of the black hole increases. The total energy stays the same.

    Nothing mysterious, and neither of them "generate dark energy". The difference is just the amount of light and matter that can escape from them.

    Also, dark energy has the most powerful effects in regions without black holes (and without other matter).
     
  6. Jan 28, 2016 #5
    If a black hole doesn't contain the matter then it would have no mass. From this view point a black hole is just that, a hole. The energy has changed form. Let me try this another way. Maybe gravitational energy is flipped inside out when it passes through a singularity and becomes reversed expanding energy. If gravity was the only force needed for galaxy formation then there would be no formation at all. Everything will fall straight towards the black hole. Much like how a hurricane on earth is the result of two opposing storms colliding, a galaxies formation can be seen as the interaction between between two opposing forces, Gravity and dark matter.
     
  7. Jan 28, 2016 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That does not make sense.
    There would, but this is an unrelated topic.
    Black holes are not necessary for galaxy formation, and their overall influence is small.

    Dark matter is attractive - it helps forming galaxies. It is dominant there - you can model the formation of galaxies purely with dark matter, and then assume other matter follows where dark matter is.

    Note that dark matter and dark energy are completely different things. They just share "dark" in their name because we don't see them in our labs.
     
  8. Jan 28, 2016 #7
    Sorry. I meant to say dark energy. Dark matter like all matter would also be fuel for dark energy.
     
  9. Jan 28, 2016 #8

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yet black holes do in fact have mass, so our observations already disprove your idea.

    As MFB pointed out, this makes no sense. Energy is not a 'thing' that can just be moved around and altered. It is a property of objects and systems of objects.

    That is incorrect. If gravity were the only force, then even less material would fall into any black hole since matter couldn't accrete and lose the necessary energy to fall in.

    This is also incorrect. Dark energy has essentially zero effect on individual galaxies. Dark matter would actually help galaxies form thanks to the added mass and gravity.

    Unfortunately the speculation in this thread has passed beyond reasonable levels. PF exists to teach people about current, mainstream physics, not to discuss personal ideas, opinions, and theories. Thread locked.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Black Holes and Dark Energy
  1. Dark Energy (Replies: 6)

  2. Black Holes (Replies: 1)

  3. Old black holes in LQC (Replies: 7)

Loading...