Jump to content
  • Join the online East Midlands astronomy club today!

    With active forums, two dark sites and a knowledgeable membership, East Midlands Stargazers has something for everyone.

Black Holes - The Key To The Big Bang?


Perkil8r
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have for some time been pondering Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB's), Black Holes and various stuff. At first as you may recall I postulated that GRB's could be the attempted start of a big bang type event which have failed. Discussion led us to conclude that it was in effect the cough from Black Holes in some cases and I admit defeat on my original thought. Whilst contemplating the other thread regarding the start of the Universe from nothing, creation and religion etc, I have a bit of a theory:


 


How big can a Black Hole get, and what happens as it gets bigger / too big? This led me to think that Black Holes hold the key to understanding the Big Bang and the birth of our Universe.


 


As I understand it, a Black Hole has increasing mass at a point of singularity thus causing infinite gravity at that point of singularity due to it having a virtually infinite density. This gravity obviously attracts other objects and matter. The point at which you would need to have an escape velocity of or greater than the speed of light is called the Event Horizon, a radius determined by the mass of the Black Hole as I understand it.


 


As a Black Hole "eats" matter it's mass increases, therefore so does the diameter of the Event Horizon meaning the rate of attraction should increase since the Event Horizon will grow closer to other matter and so the circle continues. In theory a Black Hole will affect everything else in the Universe due to it's mass, as indeed does Earth. Admittedly that effect will be very small on say the opposite side of the Universe, but it should I believe still have some effect. In theory a Black Hole should continue to grow in mass as it eats more matter, making it stronger. At some point it surely would start to pull it's neighbour in? The two combine and the mass increases enormously and with great energy almost instantly as the two Event Horizons meet?


 


Could this action continue until the entire Universe is hoovered up? If not then at which point would it stop? If it stops or once there is no more matter to eat, is it plausible to assume that the Black Hole effectively turns in on it's self and explodes? Could this not be the very thing that fueled the Big Bang? After all the birth of our Universe is thought to appear from nowhere, a Black Hole is a single point in space which contains massive amounts of matter and energy. In theory a Black Hole could swallow anything and everything, if it did so the whole Universe would be contained in a point of singularity......


 


A hole I can pick in the theory myself:


 


The Universe is not slowing down.


 


My solution:


 


We thought not so long back that we should be seeing a slowing of the growth of the Universe, or perhaps a contraction. That may still happen. Just because we now know that the Universe is still expanding, further more it is still accelerating in that growth, does not mean that it won't reach a peak, then slow eventually to a halt, then start to contract. If we compare it to a bullet being fired from a gun straight up into the air, we have no real frame of reference as to where abouts the bullet is. For all we know our bullet (the Universe) might not even have left the barrel of the gun, in which case it still has time to accelerate. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding of it you've pretty much got it right in your solution. I don't really get your bullet metaphor though. The reason why a black holes gravity doesn't pull in the entire universe is down do dark energy. The stuff we cant find that makes up about 3/4 of the universe. (can't remember the precise amount at 6:30 in the morning) this stuff is driving the universe to continue expanding at an ever increasing rate. The cosmological constant. I believe it was 42 (lol) miles per second per 3 million light years. Which between relatively close things (astronomically speaking) is easily beaten by light, but the further away you get the faster it gets until inflation is actually faster than the speed of light.

That is why we have an observable universe. Things which are accelerating away faster than light (relative to us) their light will never reach us unless the acceleration of the universe slows or reveres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy I was using was because if you fire a bullet straight up, it will accelerate and travel away, reach a peak in acceleration and start to slow yet still be traveling away until it slows enough to stall before accelerating back in the direction of it's origin.


 


Maybe the assumption that we should be seeing a slowing if the Universe were to start contracting in the future assumes the bullet is further on it's upward path than we really are? What if the Universe is still in the barrel and is accelerating still? Would this dis-prove the theory of Dark Matter? Instead of Dark Matter it would be a simple case of momentum instead. (Not saying that there is no such thing as Dark Matter, purely that it's purpose may be mis-understood)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

We thought not so long back that we should be seeing a slowing of the growth of the Universe, or perhaps a contraction. That may still happen. Just because we now know that the Universe is still expanding, further more it is still accelerating in that growth, does not mean that it won't reach a peak, then slow eventually to a halt, then start to contract. If we compare it to a bullet being fired from a gun straight up into the air, we have no real frame of reference as to where abouts the bullet is. For all we know our bullet (the Universe) might not even have left the barrel of the gun, in which case it still has time to accelerate. 

 

I believe when they accurately measured the mass of the Higgs Boson recently it supported the theory of expansion, halt, and then contraction...

 

I like your theory, however I can't really add anything intelligent to the discussion because I don't have any knowledge of physics at all really! However I was thinking, seeing as stellar distances are so massive, surely after the black hole has eaten it's nearby companions it wouldn't have increased the massive amount of distance to other stars etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read up on the concepts of the shape of the universe. It's a little hard to get your head around as it's not something I think we can easily percieve, but it links in to the expansion of the universe and why it is it's expanding.


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe


 


It's better from certain science books (the one I mentioned before, A Universe From nothing) but that link gives a good overview.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

on black holes, they do lose mass!


 


 


studies have  suggested that black holes masses are contained, and it may be due to the way radiation from infalling matter blasts the black hole's neighbourhood free of additional sustenance. "They self-regulate. "They never grow beyond a certain mass in any epoch." Their radii would be a considerable fraction of the radius of 3 x our solar system


 


Black holes also leak :   The process by which black holes lose matter is called Hawking radiation


 


At any moment, particle-antiparticle pairs are appearing and disappearing at any location, even just near the event horizon ("surface") of a black hole for a particle pair near a black hole, one of the particles may fall into the hole, leaving the other without a partner; the particle left behind can't be quickly annihilated by its now missing partner (which is what happens normally). So the lonely particle left behind finds itself no longer "virtual," but now "real," just like any particle in your body. Since this particle is now real, it contains some amount of mass, and that mass has been supplied by the energy of the black hole (through the hole's gravity): the now real particle exists because it has taken mass from the black hole. Thus, gradually, mass leaves the black hole in the form of new particles


 


Just thought i would introduce this bit :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I was aware, there is a theoretical limit of size that a black hold can grow to.  Mike makes a point in his original post about the size of the black hole / event horizon increasing by the amount of matter it "eats".  Eventually it will of eaten it's way through all of the matter in the solar system / galaxy (which ever solar system it is in) leaving it with nothing to munch on.


 


Eventually the black hole will just evaporate as it has run out of it's fuel supply.


 


With regards to your point on gravity, remember that gravity is one of the weakest forces of nature, so any affect on outer galaxy's is probably minimal.


 


Put now you are getting onto physics and i ain't an expert!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I was aware, there is a theoretical limit of size that a black hold can grow to.  Mike makes a point in his original post about the size of the black hole / event horizon increasing by the amount of matter it "eats".  Eventually it will of eaten it's way through all of the matter in the solar system / galaxy (which ever solar system it is in) leaving it with nothing to munch on.

 

Eventually the black hole will just evaporate as it has run out of it's fuel supply.

 

With regards to your point on gravity, remember that gravity is one of the weakest forces of nature, so any affect on outer galaxy's is probably minimal.

 

Put now you are getting onto physics and i ain't an expert!

quite correct Darren  someone once said   and i quote    A black hole can only capture objects that come very close to it. They're more like Venus' Flytraps than cosmic vacuum cleaners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,


 


Thanks for the link, it provides some interesting concepts and theories. I'll go back and read it again a couple of times because as you rightly say, it's difficult to get your head around. I have issues with anything other than a spherical Universe.


 


In the Universe, everywhere you look, anything with a mass large enough always conforms to a spherical model due to gravity. The Universe surely cannot break this rule since it has matter, therefore mass, therefore gravity? Nowhere do we see naturally occurring perfectly straight lines, why would the Universe be any different? No matter what shape though, I firmly believe that there must be other Universes beyond our own. Since it is expanding (we know this to be true) it has to be expanding into something. Either there must surely be a load of Universes like balls in a ballpool, or there must be a Russian Doll type situation of a Universe within a Universe within a Universe and so on?


 


Moving my original point further, is it not possible that our Universe could be the result of as I stated, and that some of the Black Holes in our Universe will become new Universes, and so the cycle would continue bringing us towards the ballpool scenario as opposed to the Russian doll idea? (I'd like to quickly mention I do not think our Universe is shaped like a Russian doll :lol: )


Link to comment
Share on other sites

quite correct Darren  someone once said   and i quote    A black hole can only capture objects that come very close to it. They're more like Venus' Flytraps than cosmic vacuum cleaners

 

I think its about 3x the schwarzschild radius where no matter can have a stable orbit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve

A black hole only has the mass - and therefore the gravitational attraction - of the matter it has consumed (minus evaporation!). The fact that that mass is concentrated doesn't affect the gravitational attraction felt by distant objects.


 


So if you have two identical galaxies, one with a black hole and one without, apart from the motion of stars in the region of the center, from a distance there is no apparent difference .  


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further reading agrees with that, although not completely. It is true that from a distance the effect is the same yes, but at the horizon that alters according to one article I read.


 


This discussion is the very reason I started the thread. I don't pretend to know all about it, and this is the quickest and most interesting way to find new things out IMO by sharing ideas, knowledge and challenging our own thoughts :)


Edited by Perkil8r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.