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

Black holes create dark energy

  1. Jul 24, 2004 #1
    It's interesting to note that if the universe expands to twice its current radius,then it will require 10^60 m^3 of space to be created per second, and so 10^60 x 10^-27kg of dark energy = 10^33kg of dark energy per second.
    This means that the mass of 1000 Suns must be created every second in the universe.Over 10^18 seconds - the time to double the radius of the universe- 10^51 kg would be needed.The only possible source for this amount of mass is the missing antimatter which would have a mass of about 10^52 kg.Black holes might take in antimatter and turn it into dark energy
    and therefore space.The pressure exerted on antimatter in a black hole would cause a phase change which would turn something that is equivalent to
    a liquid - with a small volume (antimatter) - into something which is equivalent to a gas with a large volume (dark energy).Dark energy creation in a black hole could stop a singularity from forming in the hole.But it could just be the expansion of intergalactic space lowering the pressure existing dark energy exerts on antimatter, located in intergalactic space, that allows more antimatter to evaporate and form new dark energy.

    WITH A PERIOD OF 10^18.5 SECONDS - about 2 x its current age

    If the universe oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big crunch,
    can two particles at opposite ends of it, be considered to be
    undergoing simple harmonic oscillation?
    If the potential energy of the oscillator is given by G m1 m2 /r and
    m1 is the mass of the universe,10^52 kg,r = 10^26 metres - the current
    size of the universe -then since the PE of a simple harmonic
    oscillator is given by
    PE = 1/2 k x^2, the force constant k becomes 10 ^ -37 m2.
    using frequency of oscillator = ( k / m2 ) ^1/2,
    frequency = ( 10^ -37m2 / m2 )^ 1/2 = 10^ - 18.5 per second.
    In other words the universe oscillates every 10 ^ 18.5 seconds - about
    twice its current age!!
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 24, 2004 #2
    But you have not yet indicated the source of your antimatter? The antimatter created by high energy accelerators are not stable. They only exist briefly and to keep them long enough for experimental purposes requires a lot of energy at the outset.
  4. Jul 24, 2004 #3
    I am saying that the antimatter is nearly all gone because the universe is about to stop expanding and so does not need to create more dark energy,or that there is a lot of antimatter in the universe but that it must be in smaller pieces than normal baryonic matter or else we would notice its interactions.
  5. Jul 24, 2004 #4
    Contrary to what you indicated, the universe is accelerating! This is verified by observation.
  6. Jul 24, 2004 #5
    Yes the universe is currently accelerating its expansion but I am saying that expansion has to stop when the source of dark energy runs out - whatever that source is?
  7. Jul 24, 2004 #6
    The cause of this acceleration is hypothesized as dark energy but its source cannot be from antimatter. There is also conceptual disparaty between the big bang singularity and black holes. There are many types of black holes (spinning black holes, charged black holes, neutral black holes, and different entropy, etc.) but there is only one singularity.
  8. Jul 24, 2004 #7
    I think you are absolutly right. I think the source of the dark energy is from normal energy producing systems.
  9. Jul 25, 2004 #8
    When the dark energy source runs out the universe will not have an accelerating expansion anymore.Gravity will start to slow the expansion down and also dark energy will start to turn into source energy again once the universe starts to contract.
  10. Jul 25, 2004 #9
    I don't know why Einstein threw in the cosmological constant. I think he was right in the first place when everything pointed to the universe being static. Too bad that red shift confused him into thinking otherwise. So, dark energy is repulsive? What is theorized to compose dark energy?
  11. Jul 25, 2004 #10
    I don't think dark energy is repulsive.I think it expands like a gas cloud as you add more mass to the cloud but that the individual particles in the cloud have attractive gravity.There is no experimental evidence to say what dark energy really is.
    Some theorists think it is a scalar field called quitessence and other s call dark energy something called spintessence.
  12. Jul 25, 2004 #11
    It is about time that I'm going to give my five cents definition of what dark energy is. Dark energy is neither dark nor bright. It is called dark mainly because we cannot measure it at this time but it is needed to balance Einstein's field equations.

    But Einstein's theories of relativity assumed only one kind of mass. This mass can be at rest and in motion. It is called inertial mass when it's at rest and relativistic mass when it is in motion.

    I am separating the mass into potential mass and kinetic mass with different definitions and properties. Energy coming from potential mass is the usual energy that we are acustomed to while the energy from kinetic mass is the dark energy that we are looking for. To be continued.

    edits: a continuation

    The inertial mass, gravitational mass and relativistic mass are all just different aspects of potential mass.

    But what is it that differentiate potential mass from kinetic mass? At a deeper level, they are just different distinct topologies of spacetime quantizations.

    The universe as a whole, it can be assumed has equal number of potential and kinetic and. And bacause the number is very large ([itex] 10^{83}[/itex] if the electron is mass=1, there is no point in trying to figure out minute differences in the mass value for potential or kinetic but when potential masses start to group together we get more and more fermions in one local region but the Pauli's exclusion principle does not allow them to come infinitesimally close, there is always a small distance separating them, this is the Planck length. The kinetic mass, on the other hand, spreadout giving the effect of the universal expansion.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  13. Jul 25, 2004 #12
    The kinetic mass grouping together formed the bosons with integral spin. From this concept of spacetime quantization, the gluons are not really particles but just the 8 properties of a principle of directional invariance.

    For an object to be seen or experimentally detected at low energy domain, it must have all 8 properties. The quarks, the neutrinos lack some of these properties and that is why neutrinos hardly interact and quark confinement is almost permanent unless they are of pairs formations of matter-antimatter configurations. Pairs formations are consequences of the conservation of linear momentum.
  14. Jul 25, 2004 #13
    When we talk about mass, we cannot avoid talking about density. Mass is a property of discreteness while density is a property of continuity. And the definition of density is the ratio of mass over volume.

    [tex] density = \frac{mass}{volume}[/tex]

    When mass is a constant, the density is practically continuous if the volume is infinitely large but the density also approaches zero. But when the volume is very small, for constant mass, the density becomes very large.

    Since we have now two definitions of mass, the omega value remains 1 if we take into account the density of potential mass and the density of kinetic mass and still be able to explain the universal expansion as the spreading outward of kinetic mass of spacetime quantum of curvature. Lastly, kinetic mass is not affected by the force of gravity. Potential mass contains odd multiples of these two distinct topologies of spacetime quantizations while the kinetic mass contains even multiples.
  15. Jul 25, 2004 #14
    The vacuum should contains both even and odd multiples of two distinct spacetime quanta.

    Furthermore, these spacetime quanta are really the square of energy and this energy can be borrowed permanently. The salient point is that energy can only be borrowed in square units of spacetime quanta in term of even multiples of kinetic mass or spacetime quanta.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  16. Jul 25, 2004 #15
    Antonio Lao:
    Furthermore, these spacetime quanta are really the square of energy and this energy can be borrowed permanently
    Are you saying energy is not conserved in general relativity? There was a big debate on this in sci.physics.research (Tired light) and nothing was concluded!
  17. Jul 25, 2004 #16
    The quantization of spacetime does not directly say energy is or is not conserved in general relativity. But the two distinct topologies of spacetime quanta must be conserved otherwise nothing exist. No potential energy and no kinetic energy. Potential energy is not conserved by itself neither is kinetic energy but the sum of these energies is conserved in an isolated system. The is a distinction between an isolated system and a closed system. I think, the different is one can accept energy going in but not going out. The other does not accept either in or out energy.
  18. Jul 25, 2004 #17
    Antonio Lao, are you saying that dark energy is the kinetic mass of the universe? Wouldn't kinetic mass, in a sense, act as a repulsive force for gravity? What I'm trying to say is that kinetic mass has movement. It moves outward to account for the expansion. I think anything with momvement is a repulsive force to gravity, because it moves away from the pull of gravity. I don't know; I'm just a stupid high schooler with theories on everything. :rofl:
  19. Jul 25, 2004 #18
    It is more complicated than just saying that kinetic mass is dark energy. Fermions and bosons both contain potential and kinetic mass. But because of internal interactions between these masses, the results are that bosons become kinetic (more properties of being kinetic) while fermions become potential. And the charge and mass values can all be calculated from these interactions. They are semi-groups (it is a ring - using abstract concept of algebra) with Abelian commutation for addition and commutation for multiplication with no inverse.
  20. Jul 25, 2004 #19
    Oh, so are the boson particles the cause of the expansion. With them being kinetic they have velocity, right?
  21. Jul 26, 2004 #20
    Expansion is the net effect when fermions group together simultaneously with the bosons grouping together.

    When fermions group together, the potential mass of the group increases but its volume decreases. When bosons group together, the kinetic mass and the volume of the group both increase. To keep to total mass of the universe constant, the change in potential mass equals the change in kinetic mass.

    Edits: using the concept of density as mass per unit volume: The total mass density of the universe remains equal to 1 while the local relative densities of potential and kinetic mass change because of groupings.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook