What Happens to Matter in a Black Hole?

[Laywoman]

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?

 

[ibysaiyan]

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

 

[Nik_2213]

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

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Lost in Space]

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.

 

[Laywoman]

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...

 

[Laywoman]

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?

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Laywoman]

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.

 

[Lost in Space]

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?

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Cbray]

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

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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?

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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?

 

[Laywoman]

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...

 

[Lost in Space]

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?

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[ocman]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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...

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

(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).

 

[DaveC426913]

Go ahead, tell me again how wrong I am.

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

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.

 

[Lost in Space]

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?

 

[Cosmo Novice]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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

 

[Cosmo Novice]

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.

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.

 

[Drakkith]

Yeah that looks fine to me Cosmo.

 

[DaveC426913]

Cosmo's explanation is spot on.

 

[agentredlum]

When inside the event horizon is the observer falling faster than the speed of light? Does Relativity hold inside the event horizon?

 

[Drakkith]

As far as I know, nothing is falling faster than the speed of light outside of or inside of the event horizon.

 

[DaveC426913]

When inside the event horizon is the observer falling faster than the speed of light? Does Relativity hold inside the event horizon?

No. Yes.

 

[agentredlum]

As far as I know, nothing is falling faster than the speed of light outside of or inside of the event horizon.

When i am inside the event horizon can i see other objects inside the event horizon?

Inside the event horizon can i perform an experiment to determine the speed of light?

Is the speed of light constant inside the event horizon?

If the black hole that i am falling into (inside the event horizon) is considered an 'observer' because it interacts with 'stuff' falling into it then shouldn't it measure the same speed of light that i do?

 

[agentredlum]

No. Yes.

Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

When i am inside the event horizon can i see other objects inside the event horizon?

Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.

There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this.

Inside the event horizon can i perform an experiment to determine the speed of light?

Yes, but you'd better hurry. As you fall, you will quickly begin experiencing spaghettification (yes, that's a real term) which will definitely put a crimp in your attempts to do experiments. (spaghettification is unrelated to EH).

It is important to recognize that the EH is not a real boundary of any sort, it is only an abstract mathematical one (though it has real consequences). An infalling observer experiences nothing untoward at the boundary.

As a very loose analogy, there is a boundary around Jupiter below which orbiting rubble will not coalesce into a Moon. There is nothing special at all occurring at this distance, it is a calculated distance we have determined - there's nothing "there". Simply, farther than that distance, particulates behave one way, closer, particulates behave a different way. Can you see how there's nothing special experienced when crossing this so-called "boundary"?

Is the speed of light constant inside the event horizon?

If the black hole that i am falling into (inside the event horizon) is considered an 'observer' because it interacts with 'stuff' falling into it then shouldn't it measure the same speed of light that i do?

An observer at any point outside the singularity itself will observe the speed of light to be c. (However the frequency of that light might highly distorted.)

 

[agentredlum]

Dave wrote,

"Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this."

Thank you for replies to my questions but now i have another one.

Yes, I know there is a region just outside the event horizon where you can look forward and see the BACK OF YOUR OWN HEAD! Thats wild.

Inside the event horizon i would tend to think it gets harder to see anything at all as you get closer to the singularity. Locality for you is shrinking due to steady increase of gravitation.

What i mean is, when you get closer to the singularity you may not be able to see objects that you could see when you were further away from the singularity.

If we consider events within your light cone as local. Does the immense gravitational force 'squeeze' your light cone and diminish your range of 'locality'?

Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave wrote,

"Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this."

Thank you for replies to my questions but now i have another one.

Yes, I know there is a region just outside the event horizon where you can look forward and see the BACK OF YOUR OWN HEAD! Thats wild.

Inside the event horizon i would tend to think it gets harder to see anything at all as you get closer to the singularity. Locality for you is shrinking due to steady increase of gravitation.

What i mean is, when you get closer to the singularity you may not be able to see objects that you could see when you were further away from the singularity.

If we consider events within your light cone as local. Does the immense gravitational force 'squeeze' your light cone and diminish your range of 'locality'?

Thanks.

Absolutely, yes.

 

[agentredlum]

Absolutely, yes.

Thank you. My own feeling on the subject is that it gets harder to 'pretend' that one is in an inertial frame of reference as you get closer to the singularity because the tremendous tidal forces (spaghettification) put the observer into an accelerated frame of reference and Minkowsk-Einstein space-time light cone does not hold same for all observers at varying distance from the singularity.

Relativity explains non-accelerating observers, once the observer is accelerating all bets are off.(My opinion)

 

[agentredlum]

It is very difficult to point to a non- accelerating observer.

Hold on now, I am not 'attacking' Relativity.

Rotation is an acceleration. The Earth rotates around itself and the Sun. The Sun rotates around itself and the center of the Milky Way taking the Earth with it. The Milky way is part of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies hurtling through space and i bet this supercluster is rotating too, taking the Earth, Sun and whole kit-and-kaboodle with it,but IDK if anyone has been able to calculate this rotation.

Given all this we still pretend that there exist inertial frames of reference.

 

[Zentrails]

Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.

There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this.



Yes, but you'd better hurry. As you fall, you will quickly begin experiencing spaghettification (yes, that's a real term) which will definitely put a crimp in your attempts to do experiments. (spaghettification is unrelated to EH).

It is important to recognize that the EH is not a real boundary of any sort, it is only an abstract mathematical one (though it has real consequences). An infalling observer experiences nothing untoward at the boundary.

As a very loose analogy, there is a boundary around Jupiter below which orbiting rubble will not coalesce into a Moon. There is nothing special at all occurring at this distance, it is a calculated distance we have determined - there's nothing "there". Simply, farther than that distance, particulates behave one way, closer, particulates behave a different way. Can you see how there's nothing special experienced when crossing this so-called "boundary"?



An observer at any point outside the singularity itself will observe the speed of light to be c. (However the frequency of that light might highly distorted.)

If you are inside the photon sphere you will only "see" orbiting photons. Any photons given off by you or any other object will simply orbit the black hole.

Speculating about what you might "see" even closer to a black hole is a fool's errand, IMO.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.

 

[jtbell]

The thread is now open again. Please stick to physics, and refrain from philosophical/religious speculations, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, and snide remarks.

 

[NewWave]

http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html

 

[only1universe]

I think there is 1 possibility of this happenning.

Black holes eat up all matter, all matter quits existing inside the singularity.

No matter = no distance so all black holes(And all energy) are in the same place relatively.

I'm not sure black holes completely destroy matter in this sense, but the idea that the removal of matter causes everything to suddenly exist in a singularity is the fundamental concept in how i believe our universe continually recreates itself.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think there is 1 possibility of this happenning.

Black holes eat up all matter, all matter quits existing inside the singularity.

A gravitational singularity is predicted but current, incomplete theories. It is not widely accepted that singularities do actually exist but that a more comprehensive understanding is required to accurately model what goes on in these situations.

No matter = no distance so all black holes(And all energy) are in the same place relatively.

Eh? I have two black holes 100ly apart. How are they in the same place?

I'm not sure black holes completely destroy matter in this sense, but the idea that the removal of matter causes everything to suddenly exist in a singularity is the fundamental concept in how i believe our universe continually recreates itself.

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a science forum, here we discuss evidence. Any personal beliefs must be supported by data.

 

[only1universe]

Eh? I have two black holes 100ly apart. How are they in the same place?

They are in the same place because when matter quit existing, distance became an irrelevant factor since there is nothing anchoring space. Is it your assertion that the universe behaves in a similar fashion in he absence of matter?

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a science forum, here we discuss evidence. Any personal beliefs must be supported by data.

Certainly, but I didn't think it was an errant personal belief that the universe behaves drastically different in the absence of matter. I do not know if black holes survive the big rip that expansions seems to lead to, but I do know there is plenty of evidence to warrant that instant interactions can happen across any distance in the absence of matter. So if black holes survive the rip of expansion by behaving in a way matter does not, it provides a possibility that black holes give birth to the universe.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought, since logically I believe a black hole's mass anchors space just like matter would. But it is not an area physics is certain of just yet. For inflation to be cyclical as many modern models point to, it needs to rip apart these anchors in space to behave in a non-conventional way. If its required black holes must be ripped apart along with matter to remove certain parameters of physics, then it must be so. But since the jury is still out on black hole behavior and implication, I think it is dishonest to say with any amount of certainty that black holes have nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They are in the same place because when matter quit existing, distance became an irrelevant factor since there is nothing anchoring space. Is it your assertion that the universe behaves in a similar fashion in he absence of matter?

Mass "warps" space. Who says that matter stops existing beyond an event horizon? Whilst we don't know for certain what goes on beyond an EH quite evidently there is a large gravitational effect. I have no idea what you mean by "anchoring space" not that distance is irrelevant. Quite obviously if two black holes are 100ly apart there is distance between them. Please provide citations from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.

Certainly, but I didn't think it was an errant personal belief that the universe behaves drastically different in the absence of matter. I do not know if black holes survive the big rip that expansions seems to lead to, but I do know there is plenty of evidence to warrant that instant interactions can happen across any distance in the absence of matter. So if black holes survive the rip of expansion by behaving in a way matter does not, it provides a possibility that black holes give birth to the universe.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought, since logically I believe a black hole's mass anchors space just like matter would. But it is not an area physics is certain of just yet. For inflation to be cyclical as many modern models point to, it needs to rip apart these anchors in space to behave in a non-conventional way. If its required black holes must be ripped apart along with matter to remove certain parameters of physics, then it must be so. But since the jury is still out on black hole behavior and implication, I think it is dishonest to say with any amount of certainty that black holes have nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

There is no firm evidence for a "big rip". Again what do you mean by anchor? Also it is not scientific to say "there is no evidence against this", the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Please provide evidence from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.