The "matter" that created the black hole, is by definition, no longer a part of our universe.
That would appear to contradict your earlier statement that 'mass' entering a black 'hole' does not contribute to a loss of mass in our 'universe'. As a side note, the use of 'our universe' would imply that there is more than one 'universe', which does rather violate the meaning of the word universe. The major reasoning, it seems, for other 'universes' is to explain things that we just don't understand yet about 'the universe' (imho).
The big question is does the fabric continue to stretch? This is the classic black hole model.
'fabric', and 'stretch', as well as 'hole', imply a two dimensional model, which, unfortunately, is all we are capable of understanding, or using for abstract reasoning, at this time. For instance, given the description of a 'black hole', what would one 'see' if one approached it from the 'opposite' side ? Would it not have to be a hole open on 'all sides'? How could it then have a visible 'radius', or would that just be a manifestation of our limited vision?
But suppose, just suppose, the stretching accelerates with absorbed matter. The total gravity the universe experiences increases.
Then, one would assume that the universe must be in a constant state of collapse, and that the collapse is ever 'increasing'. Scientists used to claim the universe was collapsing, now they say it is expanding. IMHO it is only their awareness of the universe that is expanding. We claim to know the 'size' of the universe, yet our instruments will never be able to catch up with the 'expansion' of the universe (if it is truly expanding). I have yet to find a 'motionless' spot in the universe to stand on to even measure the 'speed' of any object in our universe, so I find these measurements to be speculative at best.
Alternatively suppose the fabric stiffens with stretch, then the net gravity the universe experiences decreases with time explaining the increased expansion rate of the universe over time.
Then, one might assume that a black hole would eventually become 'full'. We know not yet whether this is true or not, and as I said before, we cannot know for sure if the universe is expanding as we have not (and likely never will) find the 'edge' or 'extent' of it. Given the assumed 'length' of time that we believe the universe has existed , and given the speed of light, we will never be able to 'catch up' to the alleged 'edge' even if we peer into the skies for a billion years.
Roll the clock way back, there is a sudden unexplained expansion event back near the very beginning. This might be coincident with a sufficient stretch gradient in a primordial hyper black hole to 'tear the bottom out' and have the remaining fabric 'snap back'...
Some things, we may never understand. But I do like, and appreciate your theories, and the excellent conversation.
I am not sure we have the capability to understand the 'entire universe', but you sure give it a good shot.
You're very welcome!
I am not trying to 'win' an argument, rather I am trying to expand my knowledge.
Me neither, and I've found your questions to be quite mind expanding.
That would appear to contradict your earlier statement that 'mass' entering a black 'hole' does not contribute to a loss of mass in our 'universe'.
I was attempting to draw a distinction between the cause, matter, and it's effect, gravity. I didn't explain it very well and I'm probably wrong anyway...
As a side note, the use of 'our universe' would imply that there is more than one 'universe', which does rather violate the meaning of the word universe. The major reasoning, it seems, for other 'universes' is to explain things that we just don't understand yet about 'the universe' (imho).
Modern physics has resorted to multiple universes and dimensions to explain observable reality. The language gets a little strained in the process. 'Our' universe is part of the polyverse which really is universal, or something like that. Anyway, multiplying universes in an attempt to splict the inexplicable smells like violating Occam's razor to me.
'fabric', and 'stretch', as well as 'hole', imply a two dimensional model, which, unfortunately, is all we are capable of understanding, or using for abstract reasoning, at this time. For instance, given the description of a 'black hole', what would one 'see' if one approached it from the 'opposite' side ? Would it not have to be a hole open on 'all sides'?
Yes. My head hurts.
How could it then have a visible 'radius', or would that just be a manifestation of our limited vision?
Yes, exactly! Much the same way the visible size of the earth is only 6 miles in diameter to a guy standing on a raft in the middle of the ocean.
Then, one would assume that the universe must be in a constant state of collapse, and that the collapse is ever 'increasing'. Scientists used to claim the universe was collapsing, now they say it is expanding.
Yes.
IMHO it is only their awareness of the universe that is expanding.
We know from how much of red shift light has the relative velocity of the source related to us.
We know the further away a light source is, the higher the apparent velocity and the older the light is when it finally gets here.
What we didn't know was the distance to speed ratio. We knew the universe's expansion was slowing down under its own mutual gravitational attraction. We assumed this would be enough to eventually slow and ultimately stop the expansion, at which point everything would start falling back to the original point. Pesky gravity.
We now know the universal expansion is indeed slowing down, but not fast enough to ever fully stop it.
We claim to know the 'size' of the universe, yet our instruments will never be able to catch up with the 'expansion' of the universe (if it is truly expanding).
ASSUMING the speed of light in a vacuum really is constant, and it is one of the few fundamental constants underpinning everything we know about physics and knowing the age of the universe as calculated from observable conditions we know just how big the 'observable' universe is, some 26 billion light years across. That's our "six mile" horizon. We know there's more out there and we know we'll never see it.
Then, one might assume that a black hole would eventually become 'full'.
Only if the fabric reaches the limit of its stretch, and doesn't break. I'm with you, I would assume yes, it fills up.
If 'the bough breaks' the sight of space and matter above the break snapping back would be impressive to say the least!
We have evidence that this has happened, a cosmic inflation event that occurred within a few moments of the Big Bang itself.
If our little speculations here have any validity there's a Nobel prize awaiting someone with a better grasp of physics and math than I'll ever have! No only would it provide a physical explanation of that troublesome faster than light expansion, it would also tell us just how much strain the universe can take, a handy thing to know if one ever hopes to rip a hole or two in it to enable FTL travel...
I am not sure we have the capability to understand the 'entire universe',
I'm pretty sure we don't. Bits of it, sure, lots of it, maybe, but all? nahhh.
but you sure give it a good shot.
Couldn't have done it without you asking a deceptively simple question, while allowing me to explore and by providing wise critique.
Thanks