PDA

View Full Version : Blackhole's, possiblly recycling universe? Or am I Tripping?



dgavin
2003-Dec-12, 05:06 AM
Posted this on the Black hole FAQ, but was curious as to others thoughts.

I've always wondered exactly what the matter collapses into in a black hole. Is it possible that a black hole might not be a singulaity but just super dense matter existing as quarks? For lack of better term a quark star.

This leads to another question, if enough supermassive black holes merged, might there be a quark degeneracy threshhold where once this is past, the quarks degenerate into thier smallest particle, gravitons perhaps forming a graviton star that is so intense it actually starts pulling space time itself into the star. A true singularity.

And as even more and more matter is collected, it eventylly reaches another point of degeneracy and finally collapses into pure energy.

Leading to another question, if that is the case, would not this enegery thats no longer constrained by gravity, suddenly expand in a rather startling spectaular massive big bang?

Much like how our universe started perhaps?

Just wondering...

Madcat
2003-Dec-12, 06:32 AM
I like the idea of Quark stars. If it's possible or not I don't know.

I'm pretty sure they are recycling the universe though- they're turning it into heat for us. Nice of them. Hawking radiation is cool.

Amadeus
2003-Dec-12, 11:55 AM
My own thoughts on this go like this.
over time all the matter in the universe collapses into black holes. Then the black holes start to merge. Eventualy the mass is so great that they explode by soem means I have no knowlage of. Caould this actualy explain the big bangs? and the universe is actualy a series of big bangs then big crunches?

If like you say all the matter is broken down to the basic elements isn't this the conditions of the big bang? Only the basic units.

semi-sentient
2003-Dec-12, 02:41 PM
How would the black holes ever merge if our universe is expanding/accelerating?

dgavin
2003-Dec-12, 03:25 PM
One of the fundamental Laws of Physics is that everything will eventually return to it's original state.

More and more evidence point's that the universe started with the big bang. Before that just a pool of super dense pure energy.

If a pool of energy was the original state of the universe, then eventualy, the universe will return to that state. somehow.

Supermassive blackholes (quark or quantum stars) typicaly merge when galaxies under go mergers. I don't think black holes are the end of stellar and galaxy evolution though.

My pet theroy is that if enough of these supermassive black holes (quark stars) merge, the quark star undegoes another point of degeneracy into a graviton star, or equally unique other type of star (nuetrino, virtual particles, etc), that can literally start pulling not just matter into it's gravitational influence, but space time itself.

This would be a true singulairty, not just a massive gravity well of a black hole, but for lack of a better explaination, it would become the drain of the universe. It's something we haven't seen yet. And something I don't think we'd really want to see :o

Eventually one more point of degeneracy is reached as the singulaity pulls more and more matter and space time into itself. And ungoes a conversion to pure energy.

As there is now nothing left to constrian the energy, it undergoes an instantaneous expansion until it can cool enough to start forming particles once again.

It's the only agency I can think of that would return the universe eventualy back into it's original state of energy.

Cougar
2003-Dec-12, 04:17 PM
Sorry to be so contradictory, but....


One of the fundamental Laws of Physics is that everything will eventually return to it's original state.
This is no fundamental law that I know of. Actually this goes against one of the known fundamental laws - the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

More and more evidence point's that the universe started with the big bang.
Right.

Before that just a pool of super dense pure energy.
No evidence for that.

If a pool of energy was the original state of the universe, then eventualy, the universe will return to that state. somehow.
Invalid conclusion.

My pet theroy is that if enough of these supermassive black holes (quark stars) merge, the quark star undegoes another point of degeneracy into a graviton star, or equally unique other type of star (nuetrino, virtual particles, etc), that can literally start pulling not just matter into it's gravitational influence, but space time itself.
Our own ordinary star already does this - it curves (pulls, affects) spacetime in its vicinity.


As there is now nothing left to constrian the energy, it undergoes an instantaneous expansion until it can cool enough to start forming particles once again.You'll have to develop a bit more how plus infinity suddenly switches to minus infinity....

It's the only agency I can think of that would return the universe eventualy back into it's original state of energy.I'm not sure if the universe is required to follow the same rules as the theory of musical composition....

dgavin
2003-Dec-12, 09:27 PM
Sorry to be so contradictory, but....


dgavin wrote:
One of the fundamental Laws of Physics is that everything will eventually return to it's original state.

This is no fundamental law that I know of. Actually this goes against one of the known fundamental laws - the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Actually the first law of thermodynamics lays down three forms of Entropy covered in the Second Law. Reversible, irreversiable, and cyclic.

In a closed system such as a universe, there can be samples of irreversable entropy (Black Holes and Halwkings Radiation) but no energy can actually escape the universe. Unless you assume that the more mass you add just keeps making black holes, bigger (No more particle degeneracy), there are more stages to particle degeneracy we haven't seen yet.

By definition, Entropy is always cyclic when there are no external forces at work. As all forces are internal in the universe, and there are no external, it's cyclic. Hence the law, "everything will eventually return to it's original state" covers both reversable and cyclic Entropy.

In fact I seem to remember from a Nova(?) episode in the 90's, that unless another entire universe was to form where our's originaly started, that the our universe's entropy state would never drop below 0 and become irreversible.

Thats where I get that from. Not music, but the first and second laws of Thermodynamics. Have to take them both together, can't toss the first one out and forget about reversible or cyclic entropy.





dgavin wrote:
Before that just a pool of super dense pure energy.

No evidence for that.


Had to be something there, if you accpet the big bang theroy you also need to accpet it's theroy that it started with energy, it's part of the theroy. Otherwise you start getting into it possibly haveing started from nothing.

I don't think we want to get into 'creationism' here?


You'll have to develop a bit more how plus infinity suddenly switches to minus infinity....

This is didn't understand in reguards to what I had written.

To explain more what i mean is once even gravity (all particles) were converted into energy from final stage of degeneracy, that there was no force (ElectroWeak, Nuclear, Strong, or Gravity) left to contain the energy from expanding (again according to both the laws of thermodynaics) in another big bang.

I realize that this whole pet theroy of mine still probably has more holes then swiss cheese, but in a way it does sort of make sense.

It's nice to know that i'm not the only one that thinks blackholes have soemthing to do with recycling the univers. For a while there i was worried i might actually -be- tripping out there around Epsilon Andromeda-b-c.:lol:

kenneth rodman
2003-Dec-15, 10:27 AM
well from what i recently read or viewed theres a theory out there that black holes actually slowly loose their mass so that they eventually degenerate

Amadeus
2003-Dec-15, 11:53 AM
well from what i recently read or viewed theres a theory out there that black holes actually slowly loose their mass so that they eventually degenerate
What do they degenerate into? What happends to the mass?
I assume its still impossible for matter/energy to be destoyed only converted.

Kaptain K
2003-Dec-15, 03:23 PM
well from what i recently read or viewed theres a theory out there that black holes actually slowly loose their mass so that they eventually degenerate
What do they degenerate into?
Photons.

What happends to the mass?
It gets converted into energy.

I assume its still impossible for matter/energy to be destoyed only converted.
True. The process is known as Hawking radiation. At the event horizon of a black hole, the gravitational gradient is so steep, that particle-antiparticle pairs are spontaneously created. Sometimes, one of the pair is captured by the black hole and the other escapes. Since this escaping particle was created from the gravitational energy of the black hole, the result is a net loss of mass from the black hole. When this particle meets an antiparticle, they anihilate each other with the creation of a pair of photons.

George
2003-Dec-15, 03:31 PM
What does this mean in terms of "recycling"?

For instance, does Hawking Radiation lower the entropy of the universe or is the 2nd law of thermo still valid here?

InterPur
2003-Dec-16, 04:27 PM
I suggest you all should check out the theories of Halton Arp (yes, the guy who accumulated the "Arp Collection of Peculiar Galaxies" in 1966). See his website at http://www.haltonarp.com or see his book "Seeing Red" (Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal).

Investigation would be of benefit to both sides of the debate.

Regards,
Mike Petersen

dgavin
2003-Dec-16, 08:11 PM
I suggest you all should check out the theories of Halton Arp (yes, the guy who accumulated the "Arp Collection of Peculiar Galaxies" in 1966). See his website at http://www.haltonarp.com or see his book "Seeing Red" (Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal).

Investigation would be of benefit to both sides of the debate.

Regards,
Mike Petersen

Took a look at his work. He has some intresting conclusions, but noticed a few 'black holes' so to speak in the research.

First the newer galaxies forming in a rough cone from emmisions of an older galaxy. Possible yes...but the error is in the data from 1966, that was a two dimensional plot of galaxies. I could find no distance charts to correlate the new galaxies positions. Before someone was to take that research too seriously, they should go through the same research based on Nasa's 3 dimensional universe map.

Another hole was the interjection of 'white holes' or quasars as being an engine that somehow builds more matter.

From what we know now, this violates both the conservation of energy laws, and the laws of thermodynamics. It's not to say it isn't possible but it would definately take a new realm of physics to explain.

The third hole was his anti-big bang sediments. There is more and more evidence to support the big bang, and none found to disprove it. The real clitcher for the Big Bang is two items. The signature back ground radiation from such an event that was discovered in the late 60's, and NASA's 3-dim galactic universe map. The later definatly shows that the universe initially came from a sigle point in space and has been expanding and cooling since.

The big bad theroy should really at this point be upgraded to a conclusion. No one's been able to find any evidence that disproves it.

Thats the big if's in his theroretical research.

If it was me I'd go back and replot the galaxies using NASA's 3-dim map, and see if the newer galaxies really are forming in a cone from the older galaxies emissions (a 3 dimensional one) or if that was an efffect of the 2 dimensional plot, and if it was still a cone shap considering distance, then try and figure out what was casing the formations.

It Could be something as simple as the emissions from the older galaxies pushing intergalactic medium together cuasing newer galaxies to form.

My pet black hole theroy has it's own holes as well, as it can't be proven or disproven.

Even if the technology was available, I don't think we'd even want to attempt to form a graviton hole to do so, it could very well be starting a reaction best left unstarted until it natually happens. Even if it failed it's likely to lead to the formation of some kind of black hole, and no telling what that would do to the planet.

It's just a theroy based on what we currently know about matter degeneracy in stellar or galactic cores, and extending it into the quantum realm. For all there could be 9 more forms of matter degeneracy not the two I used.

RickNZ
2003-Dec-17, 02:23 AM
In a blackhole all matter is transformed into the same quantum state so when all matter is abssrbed into a blackhole it all acts as one regardless of space-time positions BANG!

lol :D

Vermonter
2003-Dec-17, 05:54 PM
Black holes are awesome, ain't they? I loved them even more once I found out aboot Hawking Radiation. They are truly the recycling processors of the Universe. :D What if black holes become so massive they start to attract other black holes to them, even across the inter-galactic medium? With the super-massive black holes, the radiation take a loooooong time to evaporate the black hole (many many many bagillions of years for the biiig ones). I think at that point, though, time will have no real meaning.

Alex W.
2003-Dec-17, 06:05 PM
It's cool, they effectively strip all matter of its information and release it in a high-entropy state as Hawking radiation. :D

Cougar
2003-Dec-17, 08:50 PM
Actually the first law of thermodynamics lays down three forms of Entropy covered in the Second Law. Reversible, irreversiable, and cyclic.
Not sure where you're getting this from! All I find is that the first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation. The change in internal energy of a system is defined to equal the heat (which is positive if heat is added to the system and negative if heat is removed) minus the work (which is positive if work is done by the system and negative if work is done on the system).


By definition, Entropy is always cyclic when there are no external forces at work.
I believe this is incorrect. By definition, entropy is always unidirectional when there are no external forces at work. That is, disorder always increases in a closed system. If a closed system begins in an ordered state, it will proceed to a disordered state. It will never "cycle" back to the ordered state. (It is here that creationists must be reminded that Earth is not a closed system, that solar energy is constantly being rained upon it. As you say, though, the universe is decidedly a closed system.)


As all forces are internal in the universe, and there are no external, it's cyclic. Hence the law, "everything will eventually return to it's original state" covers both reversable and cyclic Entropy.
Entropy is neither reversable nor cyclic.

if you accpet the big bang theroy you also need to accpet it's theroy that it started with energy, it's part of the theroy.
No, I think that's part of your "common sense," which is not necessarily applicable to universe beginnings.

Otherwise you start getting into it possibly haveing started from nothing....
That would seem to be a bit of a problem. But we're talking about a very momentous and unique event here. Who's to say how it occurred - or how it didn't?

I don't think we want to get into 'creationism' here?
Now, THAT you've got right. :wink:

Alex W.
2003-Dec-17, 09:37 PM
First Law of Thermodynamics: U = q + w
Second Law of Thermodynamics: dS(total for the universe)>=0
Third Law of Thermodynamics: S for a perfect crystal at 0K = 0

Entropy must therefore always increase in the universe.

I just did this stuff as part of my winter Chemistry exams... as the lecturer put it:

To begin with, you think you don't understand thermodynamics.
After a few years of study, you think you understand some of thermodynamics.
After a few more years, you know you don't understand thermodynamics.

EDIT- didn't define my symbols. :o

S = entropy
dS = change in entropy
U = internal energy
q = work (?)
w = work of expansion

I might've got the first law wrong. :-?

dgavin
2003-Dec-18, 12:58 AM
First Law of Thermodynamics: U = q + w
Second Law of Thermodynamics: dS(total for the universe)>=0
Third Law of Thermodynamics: S for a perfect crystal at 0K = 0

Entropy must therefore always increase in the universe.

I just did this stuff as part of my winter Chemistry exams... as the lecturer put it:

To begin with, you think you don't understand thermodynamics.
After a few years of study, you think you understand some of thermodynamics.
After a few more years, you know you don't understand thermodynamics.

EDIT- didn't define my symbols. :o

S = entropy
dS = change in entropy
U = internal energy
q = work (?)
w = work of expansion

I might've got the first law wrong. :-?

I went back and brushed up on the Laws of Thermodynamics, and again this is what I come up with.

First Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy seeks a state of zero
Second Law of Thermodynamics - S>0 reversible Entropy
S=0 cyclic Entropy
S<0 irreverisabl Entropy

Not sure if my source is out of date, or if it's something newer. I ain't no experct on this but found this information on a universities site.

Grey
2003-Dec-18, 06:56 AM
q = work (?)
Q is heat here.


I went back and brushed up on the Laws of Thermodynamics, and again this is what I come up with.

First Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy seeks a state of zero
Second Law of Thermodynamics - S>0 reversible Entropy
S=0 cyclic Entropy
S<0 irreverisabl Entropy

Not sure if my source is out of date, or if it's something newer. I ain't no experct on this but found this information on a universities site.
Perhaps you could point to the source of your information?

Bob
2003-Dec-18, 05:55 PM
Laws of thermodynamics:

First: You can't win.

Second: You can't even break even.

Third: You can't get out of the game.

Vermonter
2003-Dec-18, 10:18 PM
Fourth Law: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns :D

sd01gg
2010-Dec-15, 06:54 PM
I do not know if this is an active thread, but I'll give it a try. Stars are born and die, gallaxies are born and merge, getting larger. Matter/energy are not created or destroyed, they just change. The graviton star is a way to explain in an empirical model (instead of some imaginary math model) what caused the BB.

Gravity, of the type that forms stars, strengthens as more mass is concentrated. One would expect this to apply to BHs that were formed from stars. Over time, a BH would have a massive increase in mass and gravity untill it might have enough force to begin attracting neutrinos.

In this Ultramassive BH (a graviton star where all the 4 forces are one--gravity), There would be enough recycled Matter/Energy/Force to create a new BB universe.

Once a critical mass was reached from the acquisition of neutrinos, the graviton star would 'explode'... creating a new universe from the remains of the old universe(s).








e











g

speedfreek
2010-Dec-17, 07:08 PM
More and more evidence point's that the universe started with the big bang. Before that just a pool of super dense pure energy.
Any evidence for the second assertion? Any sources?

astromark
2010-Dec-17, 08:04 PM
Welcome to the forum... A great deal is known of after the BB... absolutely nothing of why how or even when... of a before.
A very compact mass with a gravity of greater than c. Is a Black Hole... formed we believe by the collapse of massive stars.
There is much to read and learn of this subject... Do not be to quick to draw conclusions as yet unsupported by science.