Every black hole may hold a hidden universe

New Scientist ^ | July 23, 2010 | Anil Ananthaswamy

[samtheman]

Dupa. I just saw varmintman’s reply to you after I posted my question to you. Ok, so he provided an answer of sorts, but not really regarding the motivation, which is a question I still have to you. What do you think the motivation here is.

Varmintman, you mention the orbit of Pluto, the relative small size of the sun and then throw in the need to have dark matter to make it all work.

That is high confusion on your part. Dark matter is “needed” to explain the motions of galaxies, not the orbit of Pluto.

The orbit of Pluto is completely within Newton’s description of gravity and has no “need” for dark matter or anything else outside of Newton’s equations, including Einstein. You don’t need Einstein to explain any of the orbits in our solar system (although relativistic effects are there, of course, just too small to make much of a difference to Pluto).

You’re being very emotional with you’re wow-look-how-far-away-the-sun-is conjecture, when there’s no emotion involved and none needed. Forget about trying to wow your audience with distances. The fact is, Newton and Kepler’s equations have been used to CORRECTLY predict and find astronomical bodies before they were seen and there was no need for dark matter to do that and there is no other explanation for those predictions other than this one:

Newton and Kepler’s equations are sound. Gravity holds.

So what are you going on about and what is your actual motivation to try to unseat one of the most long-standing of sciences?

I’m just curious here. I’m not a scientist and my bread and butter doesn’t depend on any of this but I’m trying to figure out what motivates the no-black-hole crowd (one of whom is in my family and even so I still can’t figure it out).

[UCANSEE2]

that all that mass/energy is eventually, simply, radiated out of the black hole as thermal Hawking Radiation.

Logic and reason (the known laws of physics) say that if mass/energy is radiated out of a black hole, the energy/mass cannot simply 'disappear', but must GO SOMEWHERE.

[UCANSEE2]

Apparently, you did not understand my analogy. I probably didn't communicate it very well. A sunspot is a visual signal that there has been a loss or lowering of energy. The magnetic lines of force that carry the plasma are 'broken' and the plasma is snapped outwards like a whip. SO, when one speaks of SUNSPOTS, really they are CONCERNED about the SOLAR FLARES and not the SUNSPOTS.

The Sunspot's only importance is as a guide to WHERE these flares will come from, and when. So.... the FLARES are the THING we worry about, and the SUNSPOTS are just the SIGNAL for the FLARES.

Now, A black hole is not A THING, but a SIGNAL of an event. Energy and matter are sucked into it. There is a 'ring' of high energy surrounding the 'black hole'. Yes, a black hole has a huge gravitational potential energy. But we really don't know what causes that huge gravitational energy. Nor do we even understand how GRAVITY is created.

So, like a SUNSPOT, the BLACK HOLE is not a physical object, but only an indicator of a huge 'change' in energy density. The 'event horizon' and surrounding matter are real. Energy and mass pass through the black hole and GO somewhere. In order to 'pass through', then the black hole itself is not something that is there, but more of something that is not. It is because there is NOTHING inside the perimeter of the event horizon (besides the energy and mass being pulled into the HOLE) that leaves an EMPTY HOLE for the matter and energy to pass through.

Think of it this way. A black hole is like a whirlpool in a large body of water.

The EMPTY CONE SHAPED AREA is CAUSED by the energy/matter being subject to a huge gravitational potential energy (like a large HOLE in the bottom of the lake, or a built in FLOOD OUTLET for a DAM.

So... the KEY is what causes this HUGE CHANGE or IMBALANCE in the POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY FIELD, and not the HOLE ITSELF. IT's just a HOLE.

It's even called a HOLE.

If you get the chance, ask some PHYSICS major if a thing called WHITE HOLES, exists. It would be interesting to hear what they would say.

A hole can't be white, it must be black, and either empty, or passing matter/energy completely 'through', or it isn't technically even a 'hole'.

[Ditter]

All I have to say about that is......... HUH?

[LomanBill]

>>the energy/mass cannot simply 'disappear', but must GO SOMEWHERE.

It does GO SOMEWHERE - into thermal background radiation.

Never heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Hegewisch Dupa]

If the poster's response is indicitive of the motivation for The Black Hole Deniers (not a bad band name), then I'm pretty sure the source of the motivation is not the advancement of science. It was far enough out there to scare off any response from me; bless you for making the effort.

Although I have barely scratched the surface of the topic in my reading, I didn't know there was any way to test the existance of alternate universes. Mostly because I thought any interaction between universes would mean that the 'other' one was then somehow part of ours, or else we couldn't interact.

Always amused me how certain scientists arch their back and rasie their fur at the mention of God, because a being with infinate power whom you have to take on faith just ain't science. But if infinate, unprovable universes help solve your equation, or publish your paper, then by all means, throw 'em in! Suddenly it's great science!

[samtheman]

Black Hole Deniers! I like it!

I agree with your next two paragraphs also. On this subject I think we think alike. (Great minds?)

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Not as cool of a name as The Pharohs, but you are the last person I need to tell that too...

For the record I'm not all that quick to dismiss string theory, even if it means allowing the existance of more dimensions that we understand at the moment. Again, no good, hard science I can give to back it up - just that I read stuff and it seems to get by my bs filter. hardly science on my part, I know.

[LomanBill]

FRiend, even the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is but a tiny and insignificant dust mote in the context of the Universe.

In order to create another universe, your black hole would have to magically produce more energy than exists... in the universe.

It simply does not compute; except maybe in the hollywoodesque Matrix of commie disinformation, which, in the old days, consisted of Big Foot, UFOs, little green men - and anything else that would shatter the mind of the Individual public.... and the Free Republic along with it.

[UCANSEE2]

FRiend, even the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is but a tiny and insignificant dust mote in the context of the Universe.

True. But that statement neither proves nor disproves anything.

In order to create another universe, your black hole would have to magically produce more energy than exists... in the universe.

Black holes don't 'create' anything. They are the RESULT of something. When you open the drain on your bathtube and see the water circling the drain and disappearing, you don't make the assumption that the drain created the water. (Well, one could, but that would be ridiculous).

It simply does not compute;

True. It's pretty much a guaranteed fact that very few, if anyone at all, 'compute' (or understand) the nature of the entire Universe.

Even the part we 'think' we understand, may be entirely untrue. We find, day by day, that the 'theories' of yesterday were wrong, and we make up new theories.

If you know WHAT creates a black hole, and exactly where the energy goes, perhaps you could describe your 'theory' to us.

I'm all ears.

[LomanBill]

[If you know WHAT creates a black hole, and exactly where the energy goes,]

“Any non-rotating and non-charged mass that is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius forms a black hole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

And, per Hawking, where it “goes” is into thermal background radiation - in compliance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation

[UCANSEE2]

Actually, I was asking if YOU knew WHAT creates a black hole.

Instead, you quote the Schwarzschild metric from WIKI. OK.

Show me one non-rotating, non-charged mass , smaller than it’s Schwarzschild radius, that has formed a black hole.

Then I was asking you ‘where it goes’, and you quote the Hawking Radiation from WIKI. OK.

Since ‘thermal background radiation’ is a description of energy, and not any kind of location, then what Hawking is saying is that it just ‘disappears’ into the background radation of the entire Universe. Which is really a ‘non-answer’. (sorry, Hawking doesn’t know everything, and even has admitted he has been totally wrong on occassion)

---

Perhaps I should narrow the question down.

Of all the billions of humongous stars and planets that seem to disappear down a black hole, where do they go?

Why is it called a Black HOLE, if it’s not a hole, but a solid object?

If it’s not a solid object, but a hole into which trillions of tons of matter and energy seem to disappear, where does the hole lead to?

[UCANSEE2]

There is a whirling vortex of white-hot matter around black holes that have mass nearby.

Really? How many of them have you seen? Once you get past the whirling vortex of white-hot matter, and get to the BLACK part, what is it like? Is it 'losing' energy to another Universe/another part of our Universe/your option so quickly that it becomes 'black' ?

A black hole has a huge gravitational potential energy.

So does a large rock sitting on top of a hill.

So far, neither of your suppositions prove anything, nor relate to what I said.

[LomanBill]

>> ‘disappears’

It doesn’t disappear. It just becomes thermal radiation.

>>Why is it called a Black HOLE,

Because visible light goes in but does not come out as visible light.

[LomanBill]

>>Black holes don’t ‘create’ anything.

That’s right. They don’t. Where does the mass and energy required to form another entire universe magically come from?

[UCANSEE2]

It doesn’t disappear. It just becomes thermal radiation.

You aren't saying anything. Every 'star' is in the process of becoming thermal radiation. These stars 'disappear' down a HOLE. How much 'thermal radiation' is given off by a black hole vs. the amount of matter and energy that flow into it?

Because visible light goes in but does not come out as visible light.

What does it come out as? Black light?

[UCANSEE2]

Where does the mass and energy required to form another entire universe magically come from?

If we stipulate (for purposes of theoretical discussion) that there is more than one 'Universe', and that there are black holes where matter appears to be sucked in and vanish without a trace (well, a little thermal radiation around the outside edges), then the thrust of this article is that the mass and and energy come from THIS universe, as well as COUNTLESS others.

Where does all the mass and energy required to create an entire human body magically come from?

[LomanBill]

Have a nice day.

[UCANSEE2]

Where does the mass and energy required to form another entire universe magically come from?

Same place that the mass and energy required to form our entire universe magically came from.

[LomanBill]

{Same place that the mass and energy required to form our entire universe magically came from.}

"Let there be light"?