It encounters the singularity in finite proper time-which is consistent, as long as this time is much shorter than the change in the black hole geometry due to the emission. Otherwise the whole calculation doesn't make sense.

The particle that's ``on the other side of the horizon'' describes matter already; so, if it's a lepton, it acquires its mass by interaction with the Higgs field and if it's a quark it gets part of its mass that way. And it never encounters the singularity, since it reaches it at infinite proper time.

The particle content of dark matter isn't known; only its gravitational interactions with ordinary matter are. But these don't have anything to with the question asked.

The particles that are created in pais in the ``vicinity of the black holr horizon'' are of all types; and there is a probability of creating pairs of dark matter particles, of course. It doesn't mean that only such particles are created.

I guess the Hawking Radiation is not real, the element that one of the particles in the pair goes down below the event horizon is unrelated to the formation of pairs, if pairs formed inside event horizon, no chance one of particles escaped, if pair is formed out of event horizon, no difference in space-time exists there and in the space time around a gravity body not being massive enough as having an event horizon, thus, particles leading to Hawking radiation, 'emptying' mass from black hole should be observed, for example, around Pluto, where the Romans put a section of hell.

Any comment or instruction about my doubt?

Thanks. Salut +

my dear Arancha Ceada we have't found Hawking radiation yet. it is a still theory what stephen hawking explained us about black holes. Hawking himself is not clear about this anti particle.

Thanks a lot to everyone. What it is important for my projest is if baryonic matter is being created naturally among Universe. It seems it could: the BHs’ event horizon seems to be a good place. But it seems stars could be another place (I need to further read the link one of you has provided). If baryonic matter is being naturally created, then something happens to the balance parionic vs. dark mater ratio at the Universe. It could mantain constant, which could mean dart matter feeds baryonic matter and the other way orround. It could also mean one decreases while the other increases with for sure won’t make cosmological constant c

(Following previous reflexion)

If baryonic matter is naturally created among the Universe, then something happens to the ratio baryonic matter vs. dark matter. If cosmological constant indeed is constant, then the ratio keeps constant which could mean one matter destruction feeds the creation of the other in an infinite cyclic unique Universe. If the ratio baryonic vs. dark matters doesn’t remain constant, then cosmological constant is not constant at all probably meaning the Big freez or the Big crunch depending on which matter grows the most.

If baryonic matter desintegrates in black holes, may we expect current matter is generally desapearing or there is a mechanism to compensate the loss? Is baryonic matter also being desintegrated at the edges of univers where density might be extraordinary low? Or is it the other way arround, when baryonic matter reaches the dark edge of the Universe and enloghts it dark matter suffers baryonic gravity?

While baryonic matter does collapse to form black holes, non-baryonic (i.e. dark) matter does, too, since it is, also, subject to gravity.

If density is ``too low'' there isn't any gravitational collapse.

All this isn't cutting edge research, it's well known material in general relativity.

There's no such notion as ``baryonic gravity''. Baryon number is a global charge, that doesn't have anything to do with how matter affects spacetime, or is affected by it.

I applaud your questions towards greater understanding of Cosmology.

While there may be a relationship between the "constant" in General Relativity to baryonic matter, that is the presence of baryonic matter changes the constant value, such is not suspected, and not known.

Your questions involving the word baryonic, should include all particles of the Standard Model, as your questions, in an overall sense, includes all particles, not just baryonic. All particles have energy, and all particles are effected by gravity, so one should not limit to just baryons.

As even energy has gravity, a particle accelerated to near light speed, gets heavier, and has more gravity, one should also include "energy" in your question on how baryonic matter effects the constant.

I would like to change your perspective on the constant and energy/matter.

A non zero constant effects energy. The constant came first, and effects everything. And nothing, not matter, nor energy, is thought to effect the constant value.

In this light, your question's concepts are inside out?

Now, if for some reason the constant is changing values, over time, or over space, we do not have any mathematics accepted by mainstream.

And if the constant is subject to change, it likely is not from the presence of energy/matter density in the vicinity, but current mainstream belief is the change in constant value effects the local energy density. That is, the changing constant will effect the energy/matter density of local space, such as dark energy expanding "space" and as the expansion accelerates, it will be so fast, as to rip apart atoms, and then elemental particles.

That all said, to reflect upon other posts of yours in this thread, the edge of the universe, can not be reached by any matter, or any energy. Why? The "edge" is moving at faster than the speed of light, and was at the beginning, and always will be. There is no "dark" edge. Why? As space expanded, the local energy/matter that was inside that volume of space, will still be inside that volume, just all the matter particles will be further apart. The uniformity of the universe's distribution of observable galaxies is thought to extend beyond the observable horizon of the "seen" universe. That is matter is uniformly distributed not only in the observable 13.8 billion year radius universe, but even beyond that outer seen edge.

It's not logical. Very counter intuitive. Requiring either accepting the word based descriptions of the mainstream experts, or studying the mathematics to a post graduate level, along with dialog with fellow experts, to achieve the necessary counter intuitive understanding of mainstream Cosmology, that is, the Big Bang, GR, QM/QFT, TOE and GUT.

Only by such study, a decade worth, will one be able to get some decent answers to the questions you are asking. Keep asking!

Peter, thaks for your creative answer. I need to double read it to get to details. May you please recommend some Bibliography regarding this conception of universe?

It's great to ask if there are people like ypu all willing to enlight paths.

Roger Penrose's "Road to Reality" is very mathematical, and twistor/spinnor theory has not gained 100% mainstream acceptance, though a lot of careers learning the math behind them have been a good spring board for these scientists. I mention his book as it is the pinnacle of Mathematical Physics, having more breath by an unheard of degree.

A Zee writes excellent books for your level, some are free of math.

Do read Einstein's original papers on SR and GR as his writing is designed to be easily understood. Perhaps, the SR math may be easy, but not the GR. The papers are still good reading, around the equations.

Do use Amazon to find Zee's books, and what related books others have purchased. The local library Physics section is a good place to browse for Cosmology books. Susskind, Greenberg (especially accessible, DVD too), Smolin, are some authors to look for.

Youtube.com has lectures that might be great starting grounds for you.

Any of these books will be mostly mainstream, not matching your theories, though MultiVerse was proposed, it has lacked mainstream adoption, due to lack of provability, and string theory with it's multiple branes strike me as able to match your two universes, in cyclic connection, as it has the structure to accommodate such things, where two branes might be connected at 'tunnels' or at the edge(s).

The MultiVerse papers will be readable, particularly those in Scientific American, while string theory popular works, I personally have not read a book that would be readable for you, in my opinion.

Wikipedia.org is another starting place. The math is thicker than the words though. Encyclopedias can be like that.

Dear Peter Benjamin . I am thankful for your recommendations.

I have been extensively reading in Wikipedia for more than two months, firstly to refresh what I once learnt about Newton's principles, Thermodynamics laws, electromagnetism, wave equations, Boltzmann's equations... It has been for more than 27 years that I had not used any of those theories, laws and formulas!!! When I addressed SR and GR I need extra support (some youtube didactic videos) and Kragh's book Conception of Cosmos. For QM's basic principles as Heisenberg's principle and Schröndinger's (cat experiment and discussions regarding reality inside and outside the box) and Plank's equations I trusted in Wikipedia alone. Strings and branes are too much for me, so sorry. My brain is to old to afford such a deal!!!

Kind regards,

@ s h s hussainsa Stephen Hawking was a great scientist, but part of his fame may come from 'sympathy' towards a severely ill man, as they were not able offering him cure or relieve, they supported all his assertions, besides this, having a famous scientist who sells books and movies, and so on, helps the UK economy, that is not only based in pickpockets, over 20% of their revenues come from 'financial trading', meaning speculation, money laundry,...

'Money for nothing'

Wikipedia is not a good place to learn physics, as it's not designed for such. Get a physics textbook from the library. Use Amazon to select one of the better ones. Superstring has some good lay level books to learn from. Your theory with 2 branes demands string theory, imho.

case one avoids singularities like black holes (by using an adequate theory) then it seems that black holes don`t mean a Thing: including their burps

Dear Peter Benjamin .

I don't pretend to re-study a whole degree on Physics at my edge. My intention is to refresh basic principles and Wikipedia is not that bad for that. Information is quite accurate and I am very thankful to the people who share their knowledge there, most of them are good and reputed specialists. You need to know what is good or bad, of course, therefore, if anything was not clear enough, I went back to Physics books to clarify.

I will seek for your Zee's recommendations.

Many many thanks!

@Arancha Caeda

Arancha

The nearest analogue to the black hole boundary conditions that can explain the answer you seek is relatively mundane and commonly available capacitor.

A capacitor consists of two sources of electrons separated by a physically insurmountable barrier - the dielectric.

As an electron, powered by a voltage source, moves onto one of the conductors it repels electrons in the other conductor - sending them through the circuit.

The electron does not pass through this barrier, nor does it change in any way but it clearly influences electrons on the other side of the impassible barrier.

Imagine this is the case with a black hole event horizon.

You don't need this concept of anti-matter. Simply the repulsion of similar charges.

So a fast moving, highly charged particle would approach the impassible event horizon and dislocate a similar particle on the other side of the barrier.

Nothing would happen to the particle inside the black hole, other than it being re-absorbed into the general population. The particle outside the black hole would become Hawking radiation, expelled with the same momentum as the originating particle.

This in not an exact analogy but should give you an idea of how this type of barrier can be crossed with ease by the simple transposition of properties rather than physical transfer.

Regards Ian

The escaping particle state is entangled (coorelated) with the state of the antiparticle falling into the blackhole. The two are also entangled with the quantum state of the blackhole in question. The relatively recent work of Sean Carroll and his grad student, Aiden Chatwin-Davis constructs an algorithm to extract one qubit of information from a blackhole with a firewall.

Dear Ian Proffitt

Thanks for your answer. The question is what type of matter is the black holes made of? Recent theories propose dark matter inside, something like "the excess of compression due to a huge gravity filed turns bright matter into dark"

Regards,

Arancha

Koustubh Kabe definitely QM will bring the answer. Thanks a lot for answer.

You are most welcome

@Arancha Ceada

I have thought a lot about this in the past two weeks and my most compelling thought is that within a black hole the concept of matter is irrelevant. Neutrons, protons and electrons will be so compressed that they will fuse into an unknown form.

Mr best guess is that at thise pressures all mass becomes energy / photons. But of course there is no evidence for this. It is possible to demonstrate this mathematically but theory without clear evidence quickly becomes nonsense.

Ian.

Actually, there is a gravitational pressure gradient for any infalling test particle. Thus, the matter gets stretched and torn apart and these pieces get further torn apart and so on. The process is called "spaghettifspaghettification". What you are suggesting is off the mark so far as a general relativistic blackhole is concerned.

Dear Arancha, I believe yours is a very meaningful question and to my knowledge there is not a detailed and conventionally accepted formulation of the Hawking radiation process refering to its matter and antimatter components. In fact, the black hole evaporation mechanism, a consequence of Hawking radiation, is not yet fully understood, thereby paradoxes such as the information or firewall paradox are still open.

We have propose a resolution of this paradox, and we describe the evolution of matter and antimatter particles, see http://vixra.org/abs/1905.0346. However please be aware that these ideas are new and have not yet been validated by the scientific community.

Arancha Ceada I vaguely remember having read, don't remember where, that no matter can be compressed below the size of strings, but as strings is not a proven nor universally endorsed fact, the issue is complex.

For sure, this excludes 'singularity' as mathematicians define and use the concept, but perhaps the range of possible states for matter under top gravity conditions is also wide.

Salut +

Joe Graymer many thanks for your comment

Gemma F. Lopez many thanks for your answer and file.

Arancha Ceada

Your question (in my opinion and whatever is its worth) unfortunately has no scientific meaning; because "black hole" is the figment of mathematical fantasy. What was "discovered" recently is the "smile" left behind of a Black Cheshire Cat while the Cat itself vanished (if it existed at all)!

On the question of BH, the Emperor (in whose name this big fraud is promoted) was even more emphatic to dismiss such a possibility with the following conclusion: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. https://www.cscamm.umd.edu/people/faculty/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf