Is dark energy the inflow of a universal black hole?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between dark energy and black holes, specifically whether dark energy could be conceptualized as an outflow from a universal black hole. Participants explore theoretical implications, observational evidence, and the nature of dark energy in the context of cosmic phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that dark energy might be a larger version of processes associated with black holes, where matter is converted into energy and expelled into the universe.
  • Others argue that dark energy is inferred to be uniform throughout the universe, which contradicts the idea that it could be emitted from black holes.
  • A later reply questions the validity of claims regarding anomalies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and suggests that current observational evidence for deviations from existing theories is weak.
  • Some participants reference white holes in relation to dark energy, but others challenge this connection, stating that white holes are largely theoretical constructs without observational support.
  • One participant asserts that the outflow associated with black holes does not possess the properties attributed to dark energy, which is characterized differently from ordinary matter and radiation.
  • Concerns are raised about speculation without reputable sources, emphasizing the need for peer-reviewed references to support claims made in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of dark energy and its potential relationship with black holes. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the validity of the proposed ideas.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of dark energy and black holes, as well as unresolved questions regarding the observational evidence for the claims made. The discussion also highlights the speculative nature of some assertions without strong empirical backing.

tomwestboro
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Articles refer to white holes being associated with dark energy. What if dark energy is a larger version of the following process?

Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids

Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies.​
 
Space news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.
tomwestboro said:
What if dark energy is a larger version of the following process?
We infer the existence and some properties of dark energy from the expansion of the universe. One of the key properties is that it is uniform everywhere, which something emitted by black holes wouldn't be.
 
Ibix said:
Welcome to PF.
We infer the existence and some properties of dark energy from the expansion of the universe. One of the key properties is that it is uniform everywhere, which something emitted by black holes wouldn't be.

What if that is incorrect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies

With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions.​
 
tomwestboro said:
Articles refer to white holes being associated with dark energy.
Where are you getting this from? I didn't see anything in the article which suggests anything of the sort.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
tomwestboro said:
What if that is incorrect?
The rest of the paragraph you quoted from says that current observational evidence for any deviation from existing theory is very weak - and the chief scientist at WMAP suspects it's most likely wishful thinking (evidence of failed predictions would be wonderful - then we would have some evidence we could use to crack on with theory development). So at the moment our answer to "what if it is incorrect" is "it isn't incorrect".

Before you go further with this topic you may wish to review the PF rules on speculation. Unless there is a reputable source supporting the assertion that dark energy has anything to do with black holes, the topic is not appropriate for discussion here.
 
vela said:
Where are you getting this from? I didn't see anything in the article which suggests anything of the sort.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

Another interesting idea put forth by physicists, is that a white hole might explain the Big Bang, since this is another situation where a tremendous amount of matter and energy spontaneously appeared.​
 
That says the Big Bang, not dark energy. It also says at the end:
In all likelihood, white holes are just fancy math. And since fancy math rarely survives contact with reality, white holes are probably just imaginary.​
And it says similar in two other places that I noted on a quick skim.
 
Ibix said:
The rest of the paragraph you quoted from says that current observational evidence for any deviation from existing theory is very weak - and the chief scientist at WMAP suspects it's most likely wishful thinking (evidence of failed predictions would be wonderful - then we would have some evidence we could use to crack on with theory development). So at the moment our answer to "what if it is incorrect" is "it isn't incorrect".

Before you go further with this topic you may wish to review the PF rules on speculation. Unless there is a reputable source supporting the assertion that dark energy has anything to do with black holes, the topic is not appropriate for discussion here.

'New evidence for a preferred direction in spacetime challenges the cosmological principle'
https://phys.org/news/2011-09-evidence-spacetime-cosmological-principle.html

But a few recent studies have found the possible existence of cosmological anisotropy: specifically, that the universe’s expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another. In the most recent study, scientists have analyzed data from 557 Type 1a supernovae and found, in agreement with some previous studies, that the universe’s expansion seems to be accelerating faster in the direction of a small part of the northern galactic hemisphere.​
 
Ibix said:
That says the Big Bang, not dark energy. It also says at the end:
In all likelihood, white holes are just fancy math. And since fancy math rarely survives contact with reality, white holes are probably just imaginary.​
And it says similar in two other places that I noted on a quick skim.

I never said I agreed with the notion of white holes. I think what is mistaken for a white hole is the outflow associated with a black hole. I'm then asking if the outflow of a Universal black hole could be dark energy.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
tomwestboro said:
I think what is mistaken for a white hole

Nobody has ever claimed that anything actually observed in the universe was a white hole, so nothing has ever been "mistaken" for a white hole. White holes, as the phys.org article you linked to says, are "fantasy"; they are mathematical objects that nobody thinks actually exist.

tomwestboro said:
I'm then asking if the outflow of a Universal black hole could be dark energy.

And the answer is no, it can't. The entire universe is not a black hole, and the black hole "outflow" described in the links you gave does not have the properties of dark energy anyway (it's just ordinary matter and radiation).

Also, none of the sources you linked to are valid sources. You need to look at actual textbooks and peer-reviewed papers.

Since no valid references have been given and the premise of the OP question is mistaken, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix

Similar threads

  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K