I'm curious: nothing in those abstracts indicates that black holes can't form, or that they can't form the jets which are observed, or that they aren't singularities.

Just because some of those effects also are stated to be caused by pulsar rotation doesn't mean there's anything wrong with black hole theory. And nothing in the abstracts indicates that there is anything in the standard theory of cosmological origin (i.e., the Big Bang) that needs rewriting.

So, the papers are interesting in themselves, but why is this trotted out as indicating (a) black holes exist as nucleons instead of singularities and (b) the Big Bang Theory needs rewriting?

Speaking of lack of evidence, where is the evidence that a collapsed star can form a nucleon? Unless you're a Transformer, it wouldn't appear to be relevant here.

chipdatajeffB : Sir Jeff, how do you understand the concept of Mr. Hawking's Black hole, is it completly filled with matter or is it completly empty of matter, or a little of each?  If it has enpty space, then why doesn't light continue to travel at the speed of light to all observers, in the universe? Do you think the internal cosmological constant of a black hole is seperate from our's in the real universe?  Why is it necessary to explain the existance of Hawking radiation? Do you think the 2nd postulate of the Theory of Relativity is incorrect?

Good questions!

Primordial:

... how do you understand the concept of Mr. Hawking's Black hole, is it completly filled with matter or is it completly empty of matter, or a little of each?

I understand it as he has explained it in a Brief History of Time, that is, as a region of our Universe that is "closed off" by the singularity created when a Black Hole forms. That such a singularity is possible, I understand according to Kip Thorne's explanation in Black Holes & Time Warps.

That is, I understand it according to these popularizations ... I make no pretense of having a firm grasp of the mathematics involved.

 If it has enpty space, then why doesn't light continue to travel at the speed of light to all observers, in the universe?

I do not separate time and space. If you think in terms of spacetime, then what lies beyond the event horizon need not work the same way it does outside that boundary. That is, as you cross that boundary, what an observer outside the boundary perceives can be totally different from what one who is crossing the boundary, or who lies inside the boundary perceives. And these different viewpoints are relativistically consistent.

Do you think the internal cosmological constant of a black hole is seperate from our's in the real universe?  

A cosmological constant operates at cosmic scales (that is, it is observable at cosmic scales). It is not observable at the scales "inside" a black hole.

Why is it necessary to explain the existance of Hawking radiation?

Because IF a black hole can "spin down" the energy has to go somewhere. If you posit that this somewhere MUST BE in our own universe, then Hawking radiation at least partially explains that. If you suggest this somewhere lies outside our universe, then anything goes as far as I'm concerned, and you can't test it one way or the other ... it is metaphysics at worst, and hypothesis at best, and I can't show which is which.

Do you think the 2nd postulate of the Theory of Relativity is incorrect?

No, but I'm certain it's often mistakenly interpreted or applied to include ALL reference frames. And in the case we're considering here we have no information at all about whether the interior regions of a black hole are a vacuum, which is what the postulate requires for a constant c. Certainly there are portions of the region inside an event horizon that are NOT vacuum.

chipdatajeffB : Sir Jeff, How many events will occur on the event horizon of a black hole that can be observed by some observer placed at a point commonly refered to as delta + schwarzschild radius? Why can't matter form an object that could be an extended density of a form of degeneracy of matter and have gravitational effects on matter similar to observations? How can an object have a spin relative to an observer outside of an object who's event horizon time change relative to an external observer will take an infinite time to occur? Is it your understanding that gravitational changes do not travel at the same speed as light? Is there any delay between cause and effect if the cause is propagated at the speed of light?

Primordial:

... How many events will occur on the event horizon of a black hole that can be observed by some observer placed at a point commonly refered to as delta + schwarzschild radius?

I don't know. That would depend on what you call an event, what you mean by on the event horizon (I presume you mean crossing it), how large delta is, and how much matter is in the vicinity. Any matter interacting at high enough velocity with other matter in the vicinity of the event horizon would probably radiate due to frictional heating. If the energy is high enough, it would be observable outside the event horizon.

Why can't matter form an object that could be an extended density of a form of degeneracy of matter and have gravitational effects on matter similar to observations?

What do you mean by extended degeneracy? Degeneracy occurs due to collapse, or along with collapse. Neutron rebound would "extend" the distance between neutrons, is that what you mean? If by extended you mean an increase in radius of the degenerate object, then how will it have the same effect as gravity from a denser object (smaller radius). The bending of spacetime caused by gravity is a function not only of mass but also of how that mass is distributed (the smaller the volume, the greater the curvature). So, extending the radius is not the way to have an equivalent effect. Decreasing the density is one way to say the radius is extended (because the volume increases). Maybe you meant something different ... ??

How can an object have a spin relative to an observer outside of an object who's event horizon time change relative to an external observer will take an infinite time to occur?

Thought experiment here: It is postulated that the collapse of a massive star to form a black hole proceeds virtually instantaneously through the intermediate stage that would have formed a neutron star had the star been less massive. If we theorize that the neutron star would have had a spin, why would we prohibit the black hole from having at least a similar spin -- after all, the black hole is postulated to be denser (same mass, smaller volume) ... it seems logical to assume the black hole will spin, and that it will spin at least as fast a the neutron star would have spun. Once the collapse proceeds beyond the event horizon radius, what prevents the black hole from spinning or continuing to spin. Assuming angular momentum is conserved throughout the collapse (that's an assumption, of course, since can't observe the spin directly after the matter passes the event horizon). In fact, we should be able to observe the effects of spin as frame-dragging, right? I submit the fact that we can't see the black hole spinning (directly, by reflected or transmitted light) does not in any imply that it is, or is not, actually spinning.

Is it your understanding that gravitational changes do not travel at the same speed as light?

No.

Is there any delay between cause and effect if the cause is propagated at the speed of light?

Certainly there is delay. There must be a delay any time a distance is involved. Speed of light does not mean instantaneous. A problem of understanding occurs because:

• We can't observe beyond the event horizon directly.
• We have no way of sensing directly (by observing the effect) how spacetime actually differs beyond (inside) the event horizon. We can extrapolate, calculate, and postulate, of course.

So, I'm uncertain what is occurring inside the event horizon. But if spacetime is sufficiently curved, then the time * speed = distance equation is likewise bent (relative to outside observers)  for anything traveling from inside the black hole toward the event horizon. While this might not prevent an internal cause from having an external effect, we would not be able to sense directly the (outside reference frame) time elapsed between the internal cause and the outside effect.

I can give you an example I can't figure out: two black holes orbiting one another and eventuall merging. If anything is going to cause a sensible gravitational wave, that should be it. So, we watch (from outside) as the holes approach each other. At some point, their event horizons will interact. Let's say that one of them "falls" into the other and from our viewpoint "disappears". How long until we notice a gravitational wave caused by the merger -- or a change in the gravitational waves caused by their earlier interacting orbits? I simply don't know. On the one hand, you'd think "instantly" or "very soon", but on the other unless you know how severely spacetime is curved inside the black holes, you can't predict what the merger would be like. At least I can't ...

chipdatajeffB : Sir Jeff: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The delta I refer to would be on the order of Plank length relartive to an observer external to the event horizon the reason I use shorten terms is to simplify the exchange of ideas. Another question I have and it's hard to put into words, but I'll give it a try, how do you see the energy exchange happening( an event), step by step where an electron initiates a transition to a lower energy state, where it releases the wave function and the wave function's probability of occurance, occurs at the event horizon, how can the wave function collapse back to the electron and allow that probability to occur, if the collapse happens in the singularity at the same instant? I hope you understand this. If not I understand.

chipdatajeffB : Sir Jeff, I had to stop and think about the idea you presented it's a good one. The way I see this one  " I can give you an example I can't figure out: two black holes orbiting one another and eventuall merging. If anything is going to cause a sensible gravitational wave, that should be it. So, we watch (from outside) as the holes approach each other. At some point, their event horizons will interact. Let's say that one of them "falls" into the other and from our viewpoint "disappears". How long until we notice a gravitational wave caused by the merger -- or a change in the gravitational waves caused by their earlier interacting orbits? I simply don't know. On the one hand, you'd think "instantly" or "very soon", but on the other unless you know how severely spacetime is curved inside the black holes, you can't predict what the merger would be like. At least I can't ... "  , is to me a black hole is truly relative, and to each other, because of the rate time propagates on each of the two black holes they appear to each other as a star would appear to another star, and the event horizon is just relative, and if they are equal enough would disappear. If they collide the energy of the event, in the gravitational wave generated, would be dilated relative to an observer( in a lesser gravitational field), and the energy would appear to be much less than expected and the duration would be elongated. The only problem I have with this idea is what to do with the rest mass of the black hole. To me the change in relative space-time curvature propagates at the velocity of light.To me gravity is a relative change in both permeability and permittivity simultaneously, not like the photon exchange, at 90 degrees relative to each other, and both are supported by the higgs field. Thanks for your time.

Primordial:

... Another question I have and it's hard to put into words, but I'll give it a try, how do you see the energy exchange happening( an event), step by step where an electron initiates a transition to a lower energy state, where it releases the wave function and the wave function's probability of occurance, occurs at the event horizon, how can the wave function collapse back to the electron and allow that probability to occur, if the collapse happens in the singularity at the same instant? I hope you understand this. If not I understand.

OK, I think I understand now: you meant "how many events" in the sense of "can sequential events occur at or near the event horizon?" Right?

In the example you cite above, I think there is no problem because of the quantum probability. It is my understanding that all the different probabilities actually happen but we only observe what we can ... that is, the one we observe doesn't actualize until and unless we observe it.

I'm basing this on a potentially flawed understanding of QED a'la Feynmann, whose book helped me greatly to get around some difficulties I had understanding how optics work. QED made a lot of sense to me once I read his book and I haven't updated myself on it since. Maybe I'm just getting stodgy.

At any rate, if the wave function allows for (or depends on) quantum uncertainty -- as I believe current theory requires for electron potential energy exchange -- then having the exchange occur at an event horizon doesn't change the fact that it can happen -- it only helps dictate which exchange we observe (depending on our reference frame). If we are in the electron's reference frame, any of them can happen -- so which one will happen depends on probabilistic determination. But if we are in the event horizon's frame of reference, then only the one which can happen will happen. In that case, the determination of when it can happen is what throws me: does that change due to the curvature of spacetime, or not? I want to think not ... but I simply don't know.

Primordial:

... the event horizon is just relative, and if they are equal enough would disappear. If they collide the energy of the event, in the gravitational wave generated, would be dilated relative to an observer( in a lesser gravitational field), and the energy would appear to be much less than expected and the duration would be elongated.

That idea appeals to me, I think. Whenever something appeals to me theoretically, I get wary ... but I don't see a problem with it.

The only problem I have with this idea is what to do with the rest mass of the black hole.

OK, like that one! Maybe this is not a problem after all. If mass curves spacetime, as it should, and if the gradient of the curvature is related to the mass and the radius over which it acts, then couldn't the gradient of a singularity just simply be too steep (closed off). In that case, the mass would literally "disappear" and its interaction with spacetime (its energy equivalent) be radiated in a gravitational warp and/or wave?

If that, in turn, is correct reasoning, then the next obvious question is where are the waves? We should have seen them, since we theorize there are potentially trillions of black holes. One or more of the following must be true:

• There is a flaw in the reasoning.
• The waves exist, but we haven't had time to see one (false if a black hole exists within a few light years of Earth).
• The waves exist, but we don' t have the technology to detect them.
• The waves exist, but are very much weaker than we expect and are therefore below the threshold of our current means of detecting them.

I know you like the riddle of time. Perhaps it is the key here. Perhaps the waves exist, and are strong enough for us to detect them, and the events have happened near enough to Earth for them to have been detected given the travel time required from the event horizon to Earth, and within the online lifetimes of LIGO, BUT the gradient curvature of spacetime is even more severe than we imagine and the waves are frozen at the instant of their creation ... ? Seems too easy an out ... 

To me the change in relative space-time curvature propagates at the velocity of light.

Makes sense to me.

To me gravity is a relative change in both permeability and permittivity simultaneously, not like the photon exchange, at 90 degrees relative to each other, and both are supported by the higgs field. 

Oops. Does this mean the elusive Higgs boson must be massless? If it's not massless, then we'll never see gravity escape from a black hole?

I'm not sure I'd have a problem if the Higgs boson is determined to be massless. I'm not sure. This would be saying that the Higgs boson is to gravity as the regular photon is to light (used in a generic sense). But if it turns out to have a finite mass, then there's a problem with frame-dragging, right? Looks like I need to read (or re-read) some on this ...

... interesting ...

chipdatajeffB : Thank you for your answer.

Interesting that "origins of the universe" thread is talking about black holes.

Black Holes are about the densest objects we can imagine. The more mass the greater the collapse and density. Imagine the entire (known) universe, in either a state of energy or matter or a mix squeezed into a "space" the size of a tennis ball. Although the BB theory tries to imply that the BB wasn't actually an explosion, it does state that very soon after the origin event, this was the size of the universe (very briefly of course). I reckon that this would mean that it was mostly energy at that time given that matter came later. But, how could energy reach a level of such density without matter being part of the process?

Would we be able to calculate how much energy (or Mass) it would take to create a tennis ball sized black hole? (or one even smaller) we could use the SWZ Radius as a guess. I will work on the equation and post what it might be.

Is there a point were a Black Hole would super-saturate and actually explode? A point where density of mass and energy become unstable and there is no other option but for the Black Hole to literally turn itself inside out. Would this take place in another dimesion or create one? Would the temperature in a stable BH be high or low?

BQ 

brooksquest : Mr. Quest, they say it was smaller than a sub-atomic particle. I don't know how they reached that conclusion. They refered to it as a prime evil atom. However they think, mass was present and caused the anomalies in the distribution of energy that later determined the web like configuration of the large scale system we have now, with the use of Dark Matter. I wonder could Dark Matter have an anti-counterpart, that we should worry about how it became missing, and left the one Dark Matter, we have today, and does the cosmic background radiation have other components beside the microwave back ground radiation, we should be looking for, to balance this condition, could the HIGGS field be that remnant? Could virtual pairs be the remnant of the matter-antimatter elimination process, that happened at the origin, and is frozen in space-time?

G'day

Do Neutrons compact to form a Nucelon?

This information you can get from any search engine such as google. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The links that I have posted are but a few. In the next 2 years we shall either the Black holes proved or disproved or defined in a way that people can work with.

As for the Big Bang theory, you need to research that for your self.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The so called black holes form part of a recycling process that explains the ongoings of the parts within the universe rather than the origin of the universe that started via creation theory. But coined by Fred Hoyle.

FRED HOYLE

Stephen Hawking's Universe - Cosmological Stars

The cyclic process can explain the matter inflow and outflow. At the time they were locked into the so called expansion theory and not enough info to explain many issues.

Today is a different story. Within the next two years the ideas and issues in cosmology will change.

One very important point is that:

Although his idea is a bit cloudy. He is quite accurate in the formation of the elements.

==================================================================

==================================================================

So we keep on questioning many ideas

Let’s assume there are only 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion (solar mass) stars. We know there is more mass in the universe but just for this equation will we use these numbers. This gives us a universe with a mass of 1.0 x e21 solar masses.

The BBT states that all the matter and energy erupted from a cosmic egg that contained everything in the universe in a very dense form. No one has a clue what might have been outside this egg. Assuming that the universe did not come from nothing we could assume that everything was in the egg at some point. (If we assume the universe sprang from nothing, there is also the catch 22 that nothing can’t explode and that is why the BB wasn’t really an explosion). If we look at this realistically we can assume that matter and energy were present at the time of the BB and that the universe did not spring from a previous nothing. The only reason we have to assume there was nothing before the BB is that we can’t observe it. This is a dog chasing his tail because assuming nothing was there before the event depends on our acceptance of the BB in the first place. For the BB to work there had to be nothing before it. Nothing can’t explode and does not require a location. I have described this before as theoretical convenience.

It reminds me of trying to start credit as a young adult. “You need credit get this loan, oh, but you don’t’ have any yet so we can’t give it to you.”

Still somehow all the stuff in the universe came from this egg which suddenly appeared “nowhere” within the nothing. And, although it did not explode, it somehow sent everything in the universe on an expansion safari.

Sounds like a bad trip to me. Opium was widely used in high class social circles in the early 1900s and it makes me wonder how such a “colorful” story could be written.

Anyway, getting back to the SWZ Radius of a Black Hole with 1.0 x e21 solar masses. This works out to 3.0 x e21 km. In light years this would be 317 million light years. I have no idea what the collapsed radius of the BH itself would be but can you imagine the density of an object that would have an event horizon at such a great distance?

Incredible!!!

BQ

Hello Brooksquest

Hello Are you insight from PhysorgForum

You can go on for years with people, who just love the Big Bang as though they are married to it.

So! I'm just reading about the parts that make up the universe and see where they fit into the puzzel.

Borrksquest said 

I think the big bang can be explained by understanding that slow decay of matter into the gravitational wave at the level of the electromagnetic field didn't start until after the big bang, which had created rapid critical decay. So in a since, we started time as we measure it in absolute terms at the point of slow decay, which when we compare between objects in motion, or objects with differing masses becomes relative time.

You can explain any theory just as long you show observations to support and not add "ad hoc" ideas to prop it.

All matter cannot go into nothing or be created from nothing.

Time cannot start or finish.

Harry,

I am not sure where you got the quote, are you sure it was me? I am not a supporter of BB and I use examples of what the theory states to show how silly it is.

Cheers,

BQ 

Hello Brooksquest

Sorry mate must be my oooooooooops.

I think sometimes that I'm crazy,,,,,,,,,smile,,,,,I come from the land of ozzzzzzzzz.

Now why don't you think along the lines of the BB.

Most people do. 

I have written many posts on why I do not agree with BB. Surf them here and there.

BQ 

Hello brooksquest

I know mate I have read some.

Regardless add you piece of meat.

As for surfing which board will I use the 6' or 10' for the waves.

G'day

 Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

ABSTRACT

The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. Such an idea had no serious constituency until Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxy light in the 1920s, which seemed to imply an expanding universe. However, our ability to test cosmological theories has vastly improved with modern telescopes covering all wavelengths, some of them in orbit. Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it. Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations.   Interesting reading.  WHAT DOES EXPANSION MEAN? DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPAND? WHAT ELSE CAN CAUSE REDSHIFT?