Yes. I currently subscribe to the "Fuzzball" string theory model of Black holes which proposes that Black holes are in fact "Fuzzballs" of quantum strings (quarks unbound by the strong force due to the overwhelming influence of extra-dimensional string gravity). These strings form the Black Hole in a way that solves the radius in the same way as the Schwarzschild radius with the exception that their density need not be considered infinite to cause infinite space-time curvature.

This is achieved by the mode and frequency of the strings' vibrations becoming more complex as more matter falls into them rather than ever increasing numbers of strings i.e. instead of in the semi-classical quantum model of the Black Hole having many indistinguishable neutrons at the event horizon and an infinitely dense singularity in the centre. This also allows for the generation of distinct matter propagating out of the Black Hole as Hawking Radiation which should retain information from it's annihilated virtual particle formed by the interaction of in-falling matter interacting with the "Fuzzball" quantum foam.

This therefore solves the information paradox of the semi-classical quantum model by allowing for Hawking Radiation to retain quantum information previously thought lost and it allows for non-infinite densities to be calculated for Schwarzschild radius Black Holes.

The mathematics of the fractal tensions imagined to solve the Black Hole phenomena are quite eloquent if you would like to check them out:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161117?ln=ca

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1160918?ln=es

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161368?ln=ca

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161123?ln=en

When evaporating, black holes emit particles. Thus we can say, through that process, that the black hole evaporation creates matter from energy.

Yes. I currently subscribe to the "Fuzzball" string theory model of Black holes which proposes that Black holes are in fact "Fuzzballs" of quantum strings (quarks unbound by the strong force due to the overwhelming influence of extra-dimensional string gravity). These strings form the Black Hole in a way that solves the radius in the same way as the Schwarzschild radius with the exception that their density need not be considered infinite to cause infinite space-time curvature.

This is achieved by the mode and frequency of the strings' vibrations becoming more complex as more matter falls into them rather than ever increasing numbers of strings i.e. instead of in the semi-classical quantum model of the Black Hole having many indistinguishable neutrons at the event horizon and an infinitely dense singularity in the centre. This also allows for the generation of distinct matter propagating out of the Black Hole as Hawking Radiation which should retain information from it's annihilated virtual particle formed by the interaction of in-falling matter interacting with the "Fuzzball" quantum foam.

This therefore solves the information paradox of the semi-classical quantum model by allowing for Hawking Radiation to retain quantum information previously thought lost and it allows for non-infinite densities to be calculated for Schwarzschild radius Black Holes.

The mathematics of the fractal tensions imagined to solve the Black Hole phenomena are quite eloquent if you would like to check them out:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161117?ln=ca

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1160918?ln=es

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161368?ln=ca

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1161123?ln=en

Thanks.

Howard

Virtual particle formation near the event horizon, such that one particle falls in, while the other moves "away" from the black hole... when the escape velocity is just below the speed of light, and due to time slowing down, this escaping particle... takes how long to leave the vicinity of the black hole? Seems to me, the escaping particle will be moving at the speed of light, from its moment of creation, in order to escape, and even then, any orbit near a black hole is unstable, and will decay into the event horizon. So, only a particle moving at the speed light radially from the event horizon could leave the vicinity, and in that case, in falling particles would cause a deviation, a slow down (gravitational attraction, EM forces) of the outgoing particle, such that it no longer has escape velocity, and so any virtual pair that splits up... both particles end up inside the hole.

It's a nice thought experiment, that a virtual pair could have one particle escape, but I just do not see that being a reality. Your thoughts and feedback are appreciated.

To answer the question, black holes have adequate forces, inside the event horizon, near the singularity, to do just about anything, like creating particles, but no one outside the horizon will ever see them. At the event horizon, several methods, perhaps just one is uncontroversial, virtual pair production, could create particles. But would any leave the vicinity of the black hole to be 'seen?'

A simple answer to the posted question is yes. Mechanisms have been proposed. There is no proof, imho, of any of the mechanisms.

In my opinion no.

Pairs of matter anti matter are being created from energy whenever the e=mc2 threshold is surpassed, irrespective of the presence of a black hole.

When a pair is created near the Schwarzschild horizon one particle may fall inside and the other may travel free appearing as a neat Hawking's radiation from the black hole but in principle the mechanism of pair creation is that commonly described by quantum mechanics happening every where every now and then and not related to the presence of a black hole.

One can make matter/anti matter virtual pairs in your home. It just takes a vacuum chamber and two flat plates pushed together. In the uneven gaps between the two plates will be virtual particle generation. Research Casimir effect. When done in a lab, very flat metal plates are used, and positioned using angstrom accuracy, a few nanometers apart, and the outward pressure exerted on each plate can be minor or up to 1 atmosphere (I was amazed ready about this 1 atm level).

I have not read anything that requires E=mc2 to be exceeded. In the vicinity of a black hole, will energy levels from curved space, gravity twisting, and infalling matter, will exceed this 'E=mc2'? Does the E=mc2 must be qualified with delta time and delta space (volume of 3D space) requirements?

Given the combination of the Uncertainty Principle and quantum foam of empty space, virtual particles are created, randomly in time and space. Now, let's define "empty" space. That's much harder for virtual pair production.

Virtual pairs are being created every time every where, you don't need any special device at home for it, vacuum is full of this quantum fluctuations, the duration and the energy of the quantum fluctuation are related through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if the fluctuation has energy enough (E=mc2) a pair particle anti-particle, each with mass m/2 may be created.

Poplawski also claims that in the gravity with torsion the particles are born in the gravitational collapse :

"Torsion in the ECSK gravity provides a theoretical explanation for a scenario, according to which every black hole

produces a new, baby universe inside and becomes an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) that connects this universe

to the parent universe in which the black hole exists [5, 12]. At extremely high densities, much larger than nuclear

densities, torsion manifests itself as a force that counters gravitational attraction, preventing matter in a black hole

from compressing to a singularity [4, 5]. Instead, matter reaches a state of finite, extremely high density, stops

collapsing, undergoes a bounce, and starts rapidly expanding as a new universe. Extremely strong gravitational fields

near the bounce cause an intense particle production, increasing the mass inside a black hole by many orders of

magnitude." (http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1305.6977.pdf)

What is the e=mc2 threshold? Juan

Does the Casimir effect create particles of definite mass? Peter

Thanks.

What kind of particles? Peter Are they matter-antimatter pairs? With mass? No mass? Thanks. Howard

Dear Professor Stuart

Very nice explanations and weblink, I read it and find it very nice.

"This is achieved by the mode and frequency of the strings' vibrations becoming more complex as more matter falls into them rather than ever increasing numbers of strings". This fits in nicely with my fractal theory of black holes where the iteration process generates an increase in complexity at or near the event horizon of a black hole. In this model, increase in frequency corresponds to increase in complexity as you are suggesting. Check out "The Mandelbrot Set and the Fractal Nature of Light, the Universe and Everything" for more details.

However, the question is not posed correctly because matter and energy are equivalent.

If "matter" is replaced by "baryonic matter" the answer is: no, statistically, black holes can release baryonic matter but the amounts of baryons and antibaryons are equal - apart from statistical fluctuations in either direction.

Black holes do converge large amounts of baryons into pure energy, which may be emitted (by Hawking radiation), but with net baryon number averaging to zero, which implies that baryon number is not conserved in black holes. In fact, baryon number cannot be conserved by black holes, because their total mass/energy is much less than that of the baryons that contributed (no matter how long ago) to create the black hole.

Dr, t Hooft,It is a great honor to be in this discussion with you. I hope you will take the time to read my recent paper "The Mandelbrot Set and the Fractal Nature of Light, the Universe and Everything". You can find it on my Research Gate profile or just do a search for it on the internet. In this paper, I take a different approach to cosmology via the fractal paradigm. Here, I argue that the laws of physics emerge from fractal geometry (not the other way around) and that black hole event horizons form fractal patterns. Here is recent study that seems to corroborate my hypothesis:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25472-turbulent-black-holes-grow-fractal-skins-as-they-feed.html#.U9ZcoPldVcs

Seeing that even Stephen Hawking is now admitting that black hole event horizons are not what we thought they were, this might be a good time to evaluate my fractal approach to black holes. Sincerely, Lori Gardi

@Lori: fractal patterns? I did find, some time ago, that interactions between things going in and things going out of a black hole interact, and this interaction has as a result that the out going particles generate a map of a caustic region to the outside world. The caustic region sits where the black hole horizon opens up, at the time it is formed.

This caustic may resemble your fractals a bit. However, we also know that the black hole has to form distinct quantum states called microstates. These will smoothen the fractals at the Planck scale.

See G. 't Hooft, Horizons. Erice Lecture Notes (2003), ITF-UU-04/01, SPIN-04/01, gr-qc/0401027. See Section 5.

My experiences with these blogs are bad, so I don't plan to continue discussions here.

Gerard: I agree. My experience with blogs is worse than bad. That said, it was very kind of you to respond to my previous comment and I really appreciate it. I read several of your papers a few years back and am a big fan of your entropic gravity theory. If you do read my paper, you will see how I deal with the Planck limit which corresponds to the limit of the "digits of precision" and/or number of bits of the system. Using this approach, it becomes clear that fractals are not being "smoothed" at the Planck limit. At this limit, fractals can no longer form for the  same reason that a fractal cannot form at the the "limit to the digits of precision" of the computer. There is a "brick wall" at this limit beyond which, no fractals can form (because there are no bits left), UNLESS of course you increase the number of bits or digits of precision of the computer (ie. by decreasing the Planck limit and/or increasing the number of microstates of the system). It seems self evident to me that Plank limit corresponds to the limit to the digits of precision of the "universal computer" and this is why things break down at this limit, but then again, I am a computer scientist. If the Planck limit were ~10^-50 instead of ~10^-35, that is where the laws of physics would break down.

Also,  although it is not in my recent SPIE paper, my theory has a lot to say about entropy. In my model, entropy gradients are an emergent property of fractal geometry. My next paper will likely be on this subject and I will for sure be referencing your work on entropy gradients. Please take care and, again, thank you for responding to my comment. It is a great honor. 

Thanks you all for your answers and discussion to my query.  The August 2014 Scientific American paper relates evidence of a giant Black Hole being the origin of everything.

Considering the discussions of mass and energy and their being the same, a particle without mass must be something new, not mass or energy.  Of course, I am mistaken if energy can be configured by gravity into this massless particle.  I would appreciate thoughts on these musings.

By now with the operation of supercolliders,  have we now discovered most of the representative particles and their energy equivalence?  Do we know all the ways to convert particles to energy and vice versa?  I do not know where this information is to be found? 

Once again, thank-you all for considering my queries.

Howard

@Howard, indeed, I should have mentioned the distinction between "rest mass" and "total mass". A fast moving particle gets its mass increased because the kinetic energy (energy of motion) is added to it. However, when we talk of the mass of a particle we usually mean rest mass, the mass when it stands still. A photon cannot stand still, so its rest mass is zero. But its energy, and the mass associated to that, is not zero, and that means the thing goes with the speed of light (real photons always go with the speed of light).

Your last question: strictly speaking you can't "convert" mass to energy, mass is energy. Unless you talk of rest mass. If a particle is stable, you can't convert its rest mass into other forms of energy, but many of the known partciles are unstable, they decay and by that they can release energy.

All energy we deal with in daily life is stored in particles that we know, or in fields such as the grav. field or electromagnetic fields (but from a quantum viewpoint this is equivalent) . The supercolliders produce particles that we know. However, it is generally agreed upon that many more particle types may exist, whose rest masses are beyond what the colliders so-far have been able to produce, or other particles that interact so rarely with the ordinary particles that so-far they escaped from our attempts to observe them. Indeed, we know that there are sources of gravitational fields in and between galaxies that cannot have the form of particles we know. This "dark matter" is usually thought to consist of particles of a kind that still has to be discovered. There are good hopes that colliders in the not-so-distant future may produce new particles that can be detected, and held responsible for the missing mass between galaxies.

As for "energy equivalence": explicit experiments are done where one simply measures the energy and momentum that are missing. If these then show the relationship expected of a particle with mass m, then this could be a good indication that a particle with that mass het been produced. If sufficiently consistent and reproducible, this may also be called a "discovery". LHC will be switched on again in 2015. From July or so it will do real measurements again, and we hope it will find something.

Thanks.  The Higgs particle is generated from collision of two photons from what I have read.  Still, do our conservation laws of energy-mass hold in a Black Hole?  How do Dark Matter and Dark Energy interact with Black Holes?  Lots of queries.  The LHC may provide answers.  What if I make a guess that Black Holes generate Dark Matter and Dark Energy? 

Thanks again.

Howard

Howard: I think that would be a great guess. According to my fractal model of the Universe, black holes ARE the source of dark matter and dark energy. In this model, black holes are the source of dark matter and (what I am calling) white holes are the source of dark energy. Event horizons are fractal in this model and form at the interface between black hole (dark matter, contraction) and white hole (dark energy, expansion). In this model, there is no such thing as a black hole without it's white hole counterpart. ie. no naked black holes.

Lori

Thanks.  It would be good if supercollider results supported your Black-White Hole theory.

Howard

Howard: We don't need  supercolliders to support this theory. All we have to do is look at nature. Supercolliders create particles that are temporary. I am not as interested in temporary particles as I am in the persistent ones such as photons, electrons and atoms. Temporary (unstable) particles from particle accelerators always decay into the more stable particles that we know and love. My theory presents a model of the structure of stable particles at all scales including galactic and supergalactic scales. This is an alternate black hole (black hole, event horizon, white hole) model based on fractal geometry.

Here is a link to my paper on Research Gate that explains everything:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259802266_The_Mandelbrot_set_and_the_fractal_nature_of_light_the_Universe_and_everything

This is a fairly long paper but I believe it is an easy read (ie. not too much math) so I encourage you to take the time to read it if you are interested in alternate black hole theories. For the record, no one has been able to find anything wrong with what I am saying in this paper. I have run it by experts in atomic physics, quantum mechanics and relativity (here at Western University where I work) and all agree that what I am proposing is plausible.

Lori

Data The Mandelbrot set and the fractal nature of light, the Univ...

Thanks for the reading information.  If Holes are making Dark Matter and Dark Energy, is there any way to say that the amounts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are increasing with time?  The early universe should have had much less Dark Matter and Dark Energy since there was less time for Holes to exist.

Black Holes are well surmised. I am not so sure about White Holes.  Thanks again.

Howard

Howard: The BB-Model states that the early universe was dominated by dark matter (DM) and the current universe is dominated by dark energy (DE). My model says basically the same thing. This implies that the "amounts" of dark matter and dark energy do change over time. That said, I want to point something important out here. I am told over and over again that a model (my model) is no good unless it can make predictions. However, the BB-Model did not predict dark matter or dark energy. Both DM and DE were a complete surprise to the scientific community, even though they make up nearly 95 percent of the matter/energy in the Universe. This shows that the BB-Model is a tweakable model. Although we could not use it to predict DM and DE, we can put DE and DM in to the model, if we need to; and we did need to. DM and DE are still a complete mystery to the scientific community. We know that they exist, we know how they behave. We just don't know why they exist or even what they physically are.

The model I am proposing has an analogy for dark matter and dark energy that not only predicts their existence, but also predicts the amount of DE (~70%), DM (~25%) and organized matter (~5%) in an evolved universe (current universe). The earlier universe will look like DM is dominating only because the DE has not appeared yet. My model is NOT a tweakable model, that is to say, there are no tweakable parameters at all in this model, and yet it is able reproduce the dynamics of singularities, black holes, white holes (photon sphere of black holes) and event horizons which I argue, are at the center of all organized matter. In short, I am proposing that the laws of physics (including DM and DE) are emergent properties of fractal geometry. This is what the Mandelbrot set has taught me.

Lori

Thanks.  Are energy, matter, DM and DE all convertible into one another?

There is only one thing, and that is energy. Matter is one manifestation of energy. Photons are another, DM and DE are also just manifestations of energy. In my model, energy is directly associated with the process of "iteration". Each iteration corresponds to one unit of energy (Planck energy). 

Now why does energy reconfigure itself the way it does?  Space.  Energy.

Energy + Space = Matter + DM + DE

Howard. That is a good question. In the model I am proposing, it is fractal geometry that determines how energy configures itself. More specifically, it is the iterative process "generating the Universe" that determines how the universe "self-organizes" itself at all scales. Space, matter and time (the perception of time) and the laws of physics, are all emergent properties of the iterative process in a Universe that is fractal in nature. This is the basis of my thesis.

I am currently working on a way to connect Schroedinger's equation with the Mandelbrot set function via the Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC). Here, I am arguing that the BEC is the physical manifestation of the idealized Mandelbrot set function. In other words, the Schroedinger equation is really just the Mandelbrot set function in disguise. This is justified by the fact that both the Schroedinger equation (ie. wavefunctions) and the Mandelbrot set are based in the complex numbers. I was at a workshop on black holes at the Perimeter Institute last year and Dr. Neil Turok gave a very interesting talk that ended with the words "we live in a complex Universe". What he meant was that complex numbers rule the Universe, and I can't agree more.

Lori

I have been unable to obtain your Mandelbrot  set information.  Do Higgs particles not ultimately create Black Holes?  Does the Higgs field cave in on itself?

Howard: Here is a link to the paper on my website:

http://www.theomparticle.com/Images/883210.pdf

According to the standard model, the Higgs particle is responsible for the mass of all particles. I'm assuming this means black holes as well. In my paper, I talk about a particle that is much smaller than the Higgs particle. I call it "The OM Particle".It is also responsible for the mass of all matter.

Lori

Thanks.  I shall be reading.  Are you following the Science article on First generation very massive stars?

"Are you following the Science article on First generation very massive stars?"

I just had a quick peek and it looks interesting. I wonder how this object fits into standard black hole theories? Lori

Are Dark Matter and Dark Energy made from Black Holes?  I should think that this might be simulated.

My reply to your June posts is late.

@Juan: I understand the energy density in vacuum rarely exceeds the required density for virtual particles to be created "every time every where".  Otherwise, there might not be much vacuum?  Virtual pairs I understand form to varying degrees, shy of actually coming into 'full' existence, able to be separated (measured).  Perhaps that is what you are referring to?

@Howard: Casmir effect between plates I read has a 'diameter' limitation, to the distance between the plates, not larger as it would not fit.  Though how flat is a plate?  Full of cavities, right?  Let's assume totally flat.  There is a curve of diameters and associated masses, meaning just about all particles are created, as virtual pairs, which are matter-antimatter pairs, with mass.  Interesting question if massless particles, photons, are made.  Does black body radiation between the plates with the virtual particles qualify?  I think not.  Massless, virtual pair photons I would have to research, to tell you for sure.  Right now, no.

"Are Dark Matter and Dark Energy made from Black Holes?"

The model I am proposing argues that all matter/energy, including dark matter and dark energy, comes from "black holes". And by "black holes", I do not mean the black holes of the standard model, but the Black-hole-Event-horizon-White-hole (or WEB) that I describe in my paper. (see below). Basically, what I am saying is that all organized (visible) matter emerges from the white hole side of one of these structures. A recent paper was featured in Scientific American that supports the idea that we emerged from a white hole:

Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487

Although they have a different idea of what black holes, event horizons and white holes are than I do, their math is giving them the similar insights. In the simulations I do, I can show you what black hole singularities (dark matter) and white hole singularities (dark energy) look like. These are similar to the "fuzzballs" mentioned earlier in this thread in that they become more complex as you look closer to the black hole region of the Mandelbrot set.

If you don't have time to read my paper, just have a look at he figures.

http://www.theomparticle.com/Images/883210.pdf

Lori

Thanks.  I shall be reading.

I wish to broaden the current posts' focus on event horizon and virtual pairs, to in falling matter and the resulting many forms of radiation.  Two resulting photons could combine to create an electron-positron pair. I would consider the kinetic energy of infalling matter being converted to a pair as a positive answer, black holes do cause energy to convert to matter.  The potential gravity energy is converted to particle mass.

These particles can: annihilate each other, fall into the hole, or be ejected from the hole's north and south pole beams.  So, there is the possibility of observing/measuring this conversion of energy to matter.  My answer is therefore, yes.

If you are referring to processes 'inside' the black hole, where the volume is defined by the event horizon (a poor definition, but necessary for this second part), due to lack of ability to make any observation or measurement inside the horizon, the answer is unknown. 

If you consider a naked black hole, could it be considered a particle?  I think so.  Black holes definitely have many(all?) the characteristics of a particle: mass, spin, gravity, charge, etc.

It's arguable, as black holes have additional characteristics that no particle has.  It has finite diameter (if spinning), and it behaves very poorly when participating in collisions.  The colliding particles no longer exist as particles.

Though, with an event horizon, one can argue the particle's information is still present.  Its QM waveform has separated it's 'state' from it's energy. 

That brings up the question can a particle exist without its energy? Can it be 'revived?'  Questions that should be asked in a separate RG question.

@Howard: Regarding your questions posted in early August, about a list of conversions to and form energy and particles, I would like such a list as well.  I estimate it would have some 300+ methods.  Most were not covered in my college Physics education, but my continuing life time learning of the field of Physics has got me about half way up the list of 300.  By energy, I mean kinetic motion of particles, to name the primary one, with SR and GR and space twisting potential energy and such the secondary forms.  To find the many conversion methods one would have to read about 20 college Physics textbooks, each a different field of study within Physics.

There may not be any massless particles, according to two papers I read last month, including photons.  Currently, mainstream thought is photons are massless, do not attract Higgs particles.  Photons do have momentum that can be transferred to particles, causing those particles to move.  The photon either is absorbed or is reflected with a lower frequency, to name a couple commonly known possibilities.

The field of Particle Physics, QM, QED, and QCD, have covered all families of particles, where two families remain unknown.  All their energy levels are known to the high accuracy of 10 decimal places or more.  See "Standard Model" for more information.

Inside a black hole's event horizon, normal physics exist, so conservation laws are true, up to the surface of the singularity, which does not have to be a point, but can have several shapes. The singularity consists of few measurable quantities: mass, spin and charge.

Inside the singularity, time and space 'switch' roles, and normal physics do not exist. 

Normal physics do not hold from the outside of the black hole to the inside, in that paradoxes could be observed, ie faster than the speed of light, if one could only measure 'through' the event horizon surface.

Your questions are good ones, ranging from simple to highly complex, and mostly conjectured about, with almost no question between those two extremes.  Answers come from the field of Physics, and it's a few of its dozens of advanced sub fields.

Have we not made particles from energy in the supercollider?  Why not then Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

"Have we not made particles from energy in the supercollider? Why not then Dark Matter and Dark Energy?" According to my fractal model of the Universe, you don't MAKE Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Dark Matter (the contracting part of the Universe) and Dark Energy (the expanding part) work together to create matter. When you accelerate and collide particles, you are (according to the equivalence principle) re-creating the conditions of a black hole. DM and DE are on either side of the event horizon and ponderable matter IS the event horizon. So, supercolliders (for all intents and purposes) are creating DM and DE according to my model.

@Howard:The supercollider breaks apart existing groups of particles, bags of quarks striking each other, and the resulting spray of fragment particles tracks is inspected for unknown curvatures given their velocity and mass, through the detectors.  In that kinetic energy is used to slam apart existing particles, that have been made more massive by acceleration to relativistic speeds, so particles that are more massive might be 'found' is the method.  Regarding converting energy to particles being of interest to the scientists, no, that is not what they are looking for.

The WIMP that DM consists of has been theorized to exist, and few existing known particles have been proposed to be that WIMP/DM, but no existing particle has been proven to be it.  Instead, some heavier particles are proposed, and their mass places beyond the current supercollider's abilities.  Maybe in a few years.

The nature of DE is unknown, except for the suspicion it causes the expansion that has been observed in the universe.  There are no known ways to measure for DE.

Howard, as a service to you, I recommend you read all the articles on DE and DM and the supercollider in amateur articles, like at ScientificAmerican.com magazine.  Your questions would be answered faster, and in more detail, than anyone is willing to type into a forum.  IMHO

A Higgs particle is generated from two photons from my reading in Scientific American.  Likewise ,other particles might be generated from use of different energies.

Look on this article about fractal theory and catastrophic theory. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260025090_The_Use_of_Morphological_Theories_in_Geographic_Researches

Article The Use of Morphological Theories in Geographic Researches

I have always thought that black holes are links to other dimensions.. a deactivated connection point of separation from our reality our dimension. Think in terms of light switches.. on and off.. sun and the moon.. our reality .. the stars.. space.. the universe is energetically activated for us and our reality our day. Through the black holes are the umbilical chords, hallways activated linked to other energetic realities, other dimensions From their end our universe will appear like black holes as well. These black holes may be breathing in, drawing in energy from our reality to energetically fuel their reality. There must also be reciprocal sources that breathe out.. fuel our universe.. our reality. ;) the white holes.. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/794152/black-holes-white-holes-multiverse-big-bang-theory

https://astronaut.com/10-mind-blowing-facts-white-holes/