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

Matter forms after absorbtion?

  1. Oct 22, 2008 #1
    I wonder if anyone has heard of this new (perhaps decades old?) idea I stumbled on. The matter that falls into an event horizon is quickly absorbed. Everyone knows that. But the key difference is what happens later.

    Underneath the energy barrier, the matter that is consummed is distributed throughout the plane. In the moment it is brought below, a crest forms that expands over the expanse. The quantum plane is chaotic, with countless peaks of energy bustling and jostling about. When the crest meets one of these peaks and the amplitudes combine to be greater than Planck's constant, it is re-emitted into the universe at a location which resembles randomness. It seems random, since whereabouts from an observer's stance is completely obscured.

    Expanding this idea back to the early moments of the universe, if two peaks simultaneously combined (since crests are impossible without energy transferring in), an initial thrust of matter would be created into the void. This thrust is equal in magnitude to its momentum. With a direction, the gas travels unhindered until encountering another object with comparable mass. Below, the expulsion has created a crest which can meet with other peaks to continue the process. If the combined energy is not greater than h, the wave moves over the disturbance. If two nebulas are on a collision course from far away, it will then be their momentum that brings them together in a sufficiently populated region.

    The 'noise' therefore echoed throughout is the constant creation of new bodies with varying degrees of velocity and direction. This doesn't seem hard for me to believe in light of certain quantum perculiarities, like flux. The marvelous thing about this is how red-shifts are perfectly situated, matter has a natural course of starting, and energy transfer is described through ordinary means, such as wave velocity. Has anyone else heard of this before? I hope I don't sound nuts or crackpot-ish.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 22, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Time 'inside' an event horizon is irrelevant to an external observer.
  4. Oct 23, 2008 #3
    Thank you, Chronos. I am naively familiar with that idea. I was trying to describe many events that are a part of time dependence and transcend it. I guess I did it poorly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but time has no observational importance below h and faster than c. To a particle for all practical purposes, it is ignorant of its own half-life. When the matter enters the horizon, what knowledge it possessed is obliviated. It rejoins its ancestors in the energy plane and is re-emitted when another event compelling enough to overcome the resistive barrier happens.
  5. Oct 28, 2008 #4
    The problem with theories is that many sound just fine...until experimental evidence proves them otherwise and they fall by the wayside. I'm not saying the one you describe is right or wrong just that unless it provides some testable predictions which other theories do not, there is really no way to evaluate it...

    Even Einstein with general relativity had several different gravitational formulations....he did not know which was correct because the slight differences could not be tested experimentally at the time....he finally realized "equivalence" between acceleration and gravity and that give him the insights necessary to proclaim a winner among his own field theories...his general theory we now all recognize....but even then until the deflection of light by the sun was experimentally verified there was initially a more popular competing theory...Einstein was vindicated by experiment.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook