Could a singularity in a supermassive black hole experience amplification of quantum fluctuations similar to quantum fluctuations that form ever larger cycles, causing a big bang as described by Linde?
If it is reasonable to assume that an amplification of quantum fluctuations can occur spontaneously at the quantum level and continue to fluctuate in ever larger cycles until it produces a universe--forming big bang (Andrei Linde, inflationary multiverse and eternal chaotic inflation), then would it also be reasonable to assume that a singularity in a supermassive black hole could experience a similar amplification of quantum fluctuations?
(PhysOrg.com) – “In a new study by physicists Vanzella and Lima, it is proposed that gravity could trigger a runaway effect in quantum fluctuations, causing them to grow so large that the quantum field’s vacuum energy density could dominate its classical energy density. This vacuum-dominance effect, which emerges under some specific but reasonable conditions, contrasts with the widely held belief that the influence of gravity on quantum phenomena should be small and subdominant.”
“If the vacuum-dominance effect exists and is strong enough to have such consequences, scientists will still have to discover a new kind of quantum field that would react to gravity in this way, since none of the quantum fields based on known forces could induce these effects. Still, the physicists note that the possibility of vacuum dominance itself is surprising to discover within “a simple and classically well-behaved situation.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news193330592.html#jCp Daniel Vanzella and William Lima. “Gravity-Induced Vacuum Dominance.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 161102 (2010).
Such an amplification of a quantum fluctuation in a supermassive black hole singularity could occur either spontaneously or possibly caused by some unusual event. The following are proposed as possible causes of cyclic amplification of quantum fluctuations: 1. Spontaneous event similar to the subatomic quantum fluctuation proposed by Linde; 2. The merging of two very large supermassive black holes; 3. The mass of the black hole exceeding the mass of the rest of the galaxy, thus causing an extreme warp of space; or 4. An usual interaction with dark matter.
No chance at all.
All alleged black hole universes:
(1) are spatially infinite,
(2) are eternal,
(3) contain only one mass,
(4) are not expanding,
(5) are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.
All alleged big bang universes:
(1) are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases),
(2) are of finite age,
(3) contain radiation and multiple masses,
(4) are expanding,
(5) are not asymptotically anything.
The three alleged big bang universes depend on the value of their constant curvatures k (k = -1, 0, 1). No alleged black hole universe even has a k-curvature.
Thus black hole universes and big bang universes cannot coexist – they are mutually exclusive by their very definitions.
Furthermore, the Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity because it is a nonlinear theory. Thus, if X is some alleged black hole universe and Y is some big bang universe, then the linear combination (i.e. superposition) X + Y is not a universe. Indeed, X and Y pertain to two completely different sets of Einstein field equations and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
Oliver Manuel: I do not know about cutting a tale off the Big Bang; however, Hawking is not challenging the existence of black holes, despite the headlines. Reading past the sensationalism, he is proposing that the event horizon fluctuates. This is a quote from Nature 24 January 2014. “Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist. In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.”
Hawking, S. W. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 (2014).
John Wilson: Hawking is still talking nonsense (see my previous post).
Stephen Crothers: Thank you for sharing your ideas. I read through your paper
Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity. There is one statement in your abstract that may not be true depending on the definition of the word “found”. “Despite numerous claims for discovery of black holes in their millions, nobody has ever actually found one.” The effects of supermassive black holes have been seen in many galaxies with stars orbiting a relatively small area in the center of the galaxy at extremely high speeds. The gravitational forces necessary for these phenomena to occur are difficult to explain by something other than supermassive black holes. This is a link to an image of ablack hole probably consuming a star: http://www.space.com/23216-black-hole-indigestion-alma-photos.html. I can produce many more references supporting the existence of supermassive black holes if you wish.
I think the differences between a black hole singularity formed universe and a big bang formed universe could be explained by a singularity phase transition. Such a transition would resolve the differences between the two proposed types or universes or make the differences moot.
The hypothesis states that supermassive black hole singularities, under certain extreme conditions, may experience a phase transition after consolidating a significant portion of the mass of the galaxy cluster. In the case of the local group that would be the Andromeda SMBH which, I project in another paper, could become the dominant feature of the Galaxy cluster in about 10e15 years after the Big Bang. This is a rough projection that should be refined with an N-body simulation once additional computation power and data on SMBH’s becomes available.
Depending on how “universe” is defined its life expectancy is either finite or infinite.
Our universe that started with the big bang probably has an end that is at least 10e100 to 10e10000 years after the big bang. This depends upon degeneration for which there is insufficient information to make an accurate estimate. If the word “universe” means “all universes” then it is probably infinite.
If universe formation is cyclic then the hypothesis, “Axiom 8 of universe formation by cosmological evolution” may apply - If it is possible for a universe to form, it will; and if it is possible for universes to evolve processes that form more universes, they will.
This question cannot be answered by the standard model, because important information is not known, and guesses abound. Hypotheses are frequent and cheap. How do they relate to the reality of the Universe? What is known and what is a guess or hypothesis?
For instance:
• What is inside of the black hole?
• How does it get there?
• What happens to trapped photon? (after all, it is a BLACK HOLE, that is, not emitting nor reflecting light)
• What happens to mass that is absorbed? What is the product of its destruction?
• ‘Energy’ as the ‘thing’ making up the black hole is a cop-out (the same goes for the pre-big-bang singularity). Look at your text book how many different ‘energies’ are listed there? Which one is in the black hole?
• Where does the gravity of the black hole come from? ‘Energy’ is again a copout of the ignorant (those who don’t know).
• How strong is the gravity of the black hole? Why?
• What will happen to the black hole?
• Steve Hawkins has been continuing the established thought processes and mathematics. What are the theorems that he states to come up with his conclusions? Are they reality-based or mathematical tricks?
• Is the black hole an ‘energy’ singularity? Why? Is this singularity related to the pre-BB singularity?
• Please, add your own questions
Alright, everyone - THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, FYI:
Anyone, who wishes to refer to the man who is wheel chair bound, talks with a voice computer, and is the man that held the same position at Cambridge as Sir Isaac Newton, the man who is the world's most famous living physicist, the Einstein of the post-Einstenian era, the greatest theoretical physicist and cosmologist whose works and achievements in science are matchless and unparalleled, the man who's the greatest mind on the planet, the smartest man in the universe, the master of space, time and black holes, the lone genius who can grasp the ultimate laws of the universe with nothing more than the strength of his reasoning, whose work has probed the origins of the cosmos, the nature of time and the universe's ultimate fate, the geek-god of Nerddom, to whom only his wife dare say "you are not God" and yet proclaimed "The universe needs no God!" (LMAO here), that man's name is STEPHEN HAWKING, not "Steven" or ever "Hawkins" or "Hawkings" and when you do refer to him like that, you automatically look like an idiot because it means you aren't familiar enough with the man to even know his name.
So now everyone knows. Carry on...
Reply to Marshall Barnes’ comments:
I have followed Stephen Hawking (thank you for the name correction), and I respect him as a person and as a scientist.
In your note you are gushing over him without knowing about other great scientists in this world. If he is ‘Zweistein’ will be determined later.
However, to proclaim any single living or dead person as infallible, perfect, and without faults is an insult to the rest of humanity, including yourself. I don’t claim anything like that for myself. Please, note that you and I don’t know anything or much about the lives and research of those in our discussion groups. And, please, keep religion to your private life, and out of science, as most of us do. The same goes for Stephen Hawking.
John Wilson, it is not possible for the observations you refer to to be due to a black hole. See my original post. Black hole universes and big bang universes cannot be blended with one another of even with themselves because they are very different by definition. The whole notion of black hole universes in big bang universes is nonsensical. This is reinforced by the fact that the Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity because GR is a nonlinear theory. All reports of black holes and big bangs are therefore fallacious.
Ingo:
Take a chill pill. First, you might want to check your spec prescription for an update, since I clearly indicated that all the "worship" was in jest "(LMAO here)". Second, you can respect him as a scientist all you want especially since you've been following him all this time without a clue as how to spell his name. Third, that "gushing" as you call it, was a series of quotes from other people about him, all strung together. I took it from a promotional trailer that has been created for my book about him which is certainly not a fluff piece of work. You see, I've caught more errors that he's made than all the other physicists have in the world combined, so I would be the last person on Earth to say those things seriously. Again, hence my LMAO indicator (you can look up what it means, since you clearly don't know...)
Fourth, I never indicated what my religion is in that piece. I said he was the "geek god of Nerddom", which means the geeks in Nerddom think he's a god, followed by "to whom only his wife dare say, 'You are not God'", which his first wife actually said (duh or didn't you know that?), and closed it with "and yet proclaimed that the universe needs no God", which is what Hawking has said publicly which you should know about since you've been following and respecting "Steven Hawkins" for so long.
So, in closing, I strongly suggest that before you start thinking you can school me on anything, you had better get your glasses either cleaned or changed and start paying attention to raising your comprehension level a bit. If I make a goof, then it's my fault, but attitude over something that is so obviously not what you're accusing me of, I won't take. Got it? Good.
P.S. Oh, and please don't ever presume that you can associate what you don't know with what I don't know. Clearly, there's a lot that you don't, that I do. Let's just leave it at that...
Dear John:
I agree with you on the matter of super massive black holes as I've been researching them for some time now from photos and radio telescope data provided by NASA, JPL and other facilities. Here's the rub - using the prior established model for black holes (that nothing can escape them), if the event horizon is involved, then your amplification phenomena would still be bound by the event horizon. I discussed with a physicist who wrote an article for Scientific American (or it was about him - can't remember at the moment) on speculations about what might be happening inside a black hole. I had a theory about what might be making galactic jets shoot from them but was unsure as some literature stated that the jets came from inside but then I found many others that said that they were created by lines of force from the surface. The physicist in question agreed with the surface model and so I dropped my theory. Now, there's talk about perhaps there's no event horizon to which I reply "when do we ever see anything coming out a black holes?". Well, maybe those galactic jets aren't from the surface after all. If they aren't, then my theory about what might actually be causing them might be valid after. The physicist thought it was pretty good except the event horizon should prohibit it.
I'm looking into the whole affair more closely now to see if I can make any kind of determination on my own. With all the information that we can get on black holes that are observed, I'm beginning to think that there may be a great difference between what we see out there in space and the mathematical models that physicists come up with. Because black holes are so far away, it will be a while before these issues between them may be resolved in any way, I'm afraid.
Gamma ray bursts (GRB) are not ejected from black holes, rather they originate from the gravitational collapse of a neutron star to a black hole (BH). Their energetics is 1000 to 10000 times larger than that of supernovae (SN), thus they cannot arise from supernovae. One possible route is that they originate from an initial binary system consisting of a compact carbon-oxygen (CO) core star and a neutron star (NS)..The CO core explodes as a SN, and part of the SN ejecta accretes onto the NS which reaches its critical mass and collapses to a BH giving rise to a GRB. A new NS is then generated by the SN as a remnant..The energy released in the GRB
is of the order of 1 solar mass in a few 0.1 s during the formation of a BH. If a NS and a BH are gravitationally bound they can give rise to a new process of merging, resulting in a gravitational collapse leading to a new BH with the emission of a GRB and possibly gravitational waves.
.
Matts Roos, There is no such thing as a black hole and there is no big bang universe containing a black hole. See my first post. Your argument is fallacious.
The theory of black holes and the theory of big bangs are falsified on many grounds. Here are a few:
THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS
http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html
Arno Gorgels:- Revealing falsities in a theory is legitimate science. In doing so no scientist is obliged to offer an alternative theory. Once a theory is proven false, no scientist has any right to pretend it is true, and to continue using it as if it had not been proven false.
- Badges
- Science topic