What Happens to Matter in a Black Hole?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of black holes and their potential connection to the Big Bang, with participants exploring the concept of black holes as possible wormholes to other universes. Key points include the definition of a black hole as a singularity where matter reaches infinite density, and the debate over whether matter entering a black hole could contribute to the formation of a new universe. Theoretical frameworks such as General Relativity (GR) and concepts like the Einstein-Rosen Bridge are referenced, highlighting the complexities of understanding matter's fate in black holes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with black hole singularities
  • Knowledge of quantum physics principles
  • Concept of Einstein-Rosen Bridges
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of black hole singularities in modern physics
  • Explore the concept of wormholes and their theoretical underpinnings
  • Investigate the theories surrounding the Big Bang and its relation to singularities
  • Read Poplawski's papers on the mass of universes resulting from black holes on arXiv.org
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of cosmology interested in the theoretical implications of black holes and their relationship to the origins of the universe.

Laywoman
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Are any ideas out there on the possibility of a Black Hole being a wormhole(?) to another dimension/universe and if so, could the matter that's pulled in through a Black Hole be the same matter that births a Big Bang on the other side of the Black Hole?

Maybe a better question is do we have an idea of what happens to matter that goes into a Black Hole?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


All we can do is just make assumptions considering we are working on ways to unify quantum gravity to the other fundamental forces.In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.
We may find a totally unexpected scenario once the mass has been crunched to a plank density scale. Someone with more knowledge on this may add to what I have already mentioned.
-ibysaiyan
 


IMHO, even a quasar's feeding frenzy would make for a very modest 'Big Bang' on other side...
 


I find it extremely unlikely. Everything in the universe existed at the time of the big bang. With a black hole, you constantly have matter and energy falling into it. Without invoking some kind of time breaking phenomena I don't see how the matter falling into a black hole could be used in a Big Bang elsewhere. (Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow) Not to mention the fact that there is nowhere near enough matter inside a black hole to form a universe in my opinion. Could a couple of stellar masses form a new universe? I doubt it. Even the supermassive black holes only have a tiny tiny fraction of the matter in the universe inside them.
 


It used to be thought once that quasars were 'white holes' because of the massive amounts of energy they eject and could be the 'other end' of black holes. Quasars are very distant from us in spacetime and are now thought to be part of early galaxy formation.

A spinning black hole theoretically is thought to be a possible wormhole if you enter it at the right kind of angle.
 


I understand the theory on the Big Bang is that it was an explosion of energy that release pure superpositioned potentiality...meaning that there is potential for wave or particle and particles happen don't exist until there is a reason to organize into matter.


"THERE IS NO MATTER as such...all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious, intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

But the part where you said: "(Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow)" caused me to give pause to the idea...

Thanks for your thoughts...
 


In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.

Does this mean you agree to the possibility because the Big Bang started as a singularity?
 


Laywoman said:
I understand the theory on the Big Bang is that it was an explosion of energy that release pure superpositioned potentiality...meaning that there is potential for wave or particle and particles happen don't exist until there is a reason to organize into matter.

The big bang is theorized to be the rapid expansion OF space, it was not an explosion of energy. That says, to me at least, that space had to exist for the explosion to propegate into. I've never heard of particles not existing until there is a reason for them to exist, at least not in the way you are saying. To my knowledge, as the universe expanded and cooled, the temperature dropped to a point that the particles made by high energy EM radiation could be stable. The only "reason" was that the temperature dropped.


"THERE IS NO MATTER as such...all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious, intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

But the part where you said: "(Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow)" caused me to give pause to the idea...

Thanks for your thoughts...

I can't comment on Max Plancks philosophical or religious views, and I don't really understand what you are saying in that last part.
 


Laywoman said:
In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.

Does this mean you agree to the possibility because the Big Bang started as a singularity?

I don't think so. Isn't a singularity a point of infinite density IN space? The universe at the big bang should have been an infinite density OF space and everything in it.
 
  • #10


Drakkith;3320947 I can't comment on Max Plancks philosophical or religious views said:
Sorry, on looking back at my reply I can see that it didn't make much sense -it was late, I was tired and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Quantum Physics, fact vs. theory etc. Hence my Log In name...
I'd still have more questions about your explanations simply because I believe that a good part of the info on this and other subjects like it is speculation. Kind of like philosophy...and Quantum Physics seems to want to lead me to see some kind of connection with philosophy.
But thank you for your comments.
:smile:
 
  • #11


Drakkith said:
I don't think so. Isn't a singularity a point of infinite density IN space? The universe at the big bang should have been an infinite density OF space and everything in it.

If it was wouldn't this imply that there was infinite gravity too? Hasn't infinite gravity been dismissed as not possible? If there was infinite density and infinite gravity, how could this be disrupted so catastrophically?

Secondly, are singularities distinctly separate entities or could they be somehow a manifestation of the same thing? Wouldn't the universe at the point of the Big Bang in effect have been a singularity? What would distinguish one singularity from another apart from its relative position in spacetime as determined by its event horizon?

And thirdly, could gravity be some form of super entanglement between all mass somehow linked to the 'primordial atom' that has been theorized as the progenitor of the Big Bang?
 
  • #12


It's possible for the matter of a collapsing star to become the white-hole beginning of another universe, via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge...

http://au.arxiv.org/abs/0901.0215"

...and anything falling in afterwards ends up in a separate Universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


qraal said:
It's possible for the matter of a collapsing star to become the white-hole beginning of another universe, via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge...

http://au.arxiv.org/abs/0901.0215"

...and anything falling in afterwards ends up in a separate Universe.

So all the matter and energy in the universe could be from the initial collapse of a massive star? Unless the laws of physics are different in this other universe, I don't see this being possible as you cannot pack that much matter into a star without it blowing itself to pieces and not forming a black hole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14


Wouldn't you need all the matter from the Universe then?
 
  • #15


Drakkith said:
So all the matter and energy in the universe could be from the initial collapse of a massive star? Unless the laws of physics are different in this other universe, I don't see this being possible as you cannot pack that much matter into a star without it blowing itself to pieces and not forming a black hole.

Gravitational energy is negative to the positive of normal mass-energy, thus you can make immense amounts of mass if it can be exactly balanced by its gravitational energy. This has been a part of cosmological theories for years. Poplawski discusses the mass of a Universe that results from a black-hole, quoting some huge figure. Do a search for his papers on arXiv.org if you want more details.
 
  • #16


Cbray said:
Wouldn't you need all the matter from the Universe then?

The mass of the collapsed star acts as a seed and the new Universe's mass-energy almost perfectly balances out against its gravitational potential energy. Thus the net positive energy needed to make the new Universe is what's inside an average collapsing star.
 
  • #17


qraal said:
Gravitational energy is negative to the positive of normal mass-energy, thus you can make immense amounts of mass if it can be exactly balanced by its gravitational energy. This has been a part of cosmological theories for years. Poplawski discusses the mass of a Universe that results from a black-hole, quoting some huge figure. Do a search for his papers on arXiv.org if you want more details.

Negative to the positive of normal mass-energy? What does that even mean? How can you create some huge amount of matter from less?
 
  • #18


Drakkith said:
Negative to the positive of normal mass-energy? What does that even mean? How can you create some huge amount of matter from less?

Have you never heard of that idea? The Universe is the ultimate "Free Lunch" because of that. It's been a part of cosmology for years and years.
 
  • #19


qraal said:
Have you never heard of that idea? The Universe is the ultimate "Free Lunch" because of that. It's been a part of cosmology for years and years.

I've absolutely never heard of it. Got a link for more info?
 
  • #20


qraal said:
It's possible for the matter of a collapsing star to become the white-hole beginning of another universe, via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge...

http://au.arxiv.org/abs/0901.0215"

...and anything falling in afterwards ends up in a separate Universe.

Thanks for the link and at least discussing the possibility...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21


So... if our universe is inside a black hole, we can say that there is time and space inside Einstein-Rosen black holes and is defined as within their event horizon? But where is the event horizon? Is it defined as the boundary between past and future?
 
  • #22
Lost in Space said:
So... if our universe is inside a black hole, we can say that there is time and space inside Einstein-Rosen black holes and is defined as within their event horizon? But where is the event horizon? Is it defined as the boundary between past and future?
The Einstein-Rosen bridge joins two space-times but the event horizon in our space-time is quite distinct from the white hole in the new space-time.
 
  • #23


I tried to post an Idea about this and was admonished by all, but I still contend that time is no longer applicable in a black hole, and that if it were somehow possible to escape this space-time and observe the black hole from the side it would become a like cylinder with bulges and pinches when (not where) matter became locked inside. One end of the black hole would be like an anchor in time, the moment the mass was too much for our plane of existence and left behind in a new space-time or dimension .The mouth of the black hole travels along with the rest of space-time and the gravitational pull of the matter inside still exist because of our perspective to it.



Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am.
 
  • #24


ocman said:
I tried to post an Idea about this and was admonished by all, but I still contend that time is no longer applicable in a black hole, and that if it were somehow possible to escape this space-time and observe the black hole from the side it would become a like cylinder with bulges and pinches when (not where) matter became locked inside. One end of the black hole would be like an anchor in time, the moment the mass was too much for our plane of existence and left behind in a new space-time or dimension .The mouth of the black hole travels along with the rest of space-time and the gravitational pull of the matter inside still exist because of our perspective to it.



Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am.

So you decide to tell us again after being warned? Smart...
 
  • #25


Laywoman said:
In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.

Does this mean you agree to the possibility because the Big Bang started as a singularity?

Singularity is a broad term. It simply means "a point at which our understanding stops."

So, though they are the same thing, they are not the same thing. :biggrin:

(In JavaScript, there is a value called NaN (which means "not a number"). NaN has the peculiar property is not equal to itself. i.e. the statement NaN==NaN resolves as FALSE).
 
  • #26


ocman said:
Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am.

As Pauli once said. "It's not even wrong." :wink:

Seriously, ocman, this is a board that upholds currently-understood science , not one that invites unfounded hypotheses. There are boards out there that encourage this; but PF is not one of them.
 
  • #27


ocman said:
I tried to post an Idea about this and was admonished by all, but I still contend that time is no longer applicable in a black hole, and that if it were somehow possible to escape this space-time and observe the black hole from the side it would become a like cylinder with bulges and pinches when (not where) matter became locked inside. One end of the black hole would be like an anchor in time, the moment the mass was too much for our plane of existence and left behind in a new space-time or dimension .The mouth of the black hole travels along with the rest of space-time and the gravitational pull of the matter inside still exist because of our perspective to it.



Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am.

If time is no longer applicable in a black hole, how can there be a 'new space-time' or dimension? Don't you really mean that time is no longer applicable inside a singularity?
 
  • #28


Lost in Space said:
If time is no longer applicable in a black hole, how can there be a 'new space-time' or dimension? Don't you really mean that time is no longer applicable inside a singularity?

Time becomes irrelevant to the observer as time dilation is so intense in a black hole, eventually leading to a singularity - however time dilation is an observer phenomenon and our observations will have stopped at the event horizon. We cannot really say time is not applicable at the singularity as we really have no idea what is happening.
 
  • #29


Time doesn't stop or become irrelevant to an observer falling into a black hole.
 
  • #30


Drakkith said:
Time doesn't stop or become irrelevant to an observer falling into a black hole.

I did not say time stopped - I stated it became irrelevant, which was probably the wrong turn of phrase. What I meant to say below.

Lost in Space said:
If time is no longer applicable in a black hole, how can there be a 'new space-time' or dimension? Don't you really mean that time is no longer applicable inside a singularity?

For the infalling observer, the passage of time remains unaffected - they have a finite passage of time. For the external observer however, they become increasingly redshifted at the edge of the EH and as they cross the EH being redshifted into obscurity - though they have crossed in finite term from their own infalling perspective. Both perspectives are true at anyone point.

What I mean by irrelevency is that they are information holes - causally disconnected from our U. When talking about the big bang, t=0 has no real meaning and this is essntially true for a singularity - current models just do not explain the singularity so to talk about time has no real meaning - it is quite irrelevant.

I hope I made this a bit clearer. If I have misunderstood some content then please let me know.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

High School I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Stargazing Dark matter and its effect on the orbit of stars
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School What is dark matter?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad The initial density of an object and its compression into a black hole
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Undergrad Black holes and relation to creation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Matter-Antimatter black hole collision
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School The Physics of a Black Hole Merger: What Happens to Mass?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
12K
Undergrad Information loss in black hole, why is it a problem?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions about Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Dark Matter
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School Matter falling into a black hole
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K