Clusters of Black Holes Found! Breaking News

Missing Black Hole Report: Hundreds Found!

10.25.07


PASADENA, Calif. - Astronomers have unmasked hundreds of black holes hiding deep inside dusty galaxies billions of light-years away.

The massive, growing black holes, discovered by NASA's Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes, represent a large fraction of a long-sought missing population. Their discovery implies there were hundreds of millions of additional black holes growing in our young universe, more than doubling the total amount known at that distance.

Image right: This image, taken with Spitzer's infrared vision, shows a fraction of these black holes, which are located deep in the bellies of distant, massive galaxies (circled in blue). Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique
+ Full image and caption

"Active, supermassive black holes were everywhere in the early universe," said Mark Dickinson of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, Ariz. "We had seen the tip of the iceberg before in our search for these objects. Now, we can see the iceberg itself." Dickinson is a co-author of two new papers appearing in the Nov. 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. Emanuele Daddi of the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique in France led the research.

The findings are also the first direct evidence that most, if not all, massive galaxies in the distant universe spent their youths building monstrous black holes at their cores.

For decades, a large population of active black holes has been considered missing. These highly energetic structures belong to a class of black holes called quasars. A quasar consists of a doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that surrounds and feeds a budding supermassive black hole. As the gas and dust are devoured by the black hole, they heat up and shoot out X-rays. Those X-rays can be detected as a general glow in space, but often the quasars themselves can't be seen directly because dust and gas blocks them from our view.

"We knew from other studies from about 30 years ago that there must be more quasars in the universe, but we didn't know where to find them until now," said Daddi.

Image left: An artist's concept of a growing black hole. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
+ Full image and caption

Daddi and his team initially set out to study 1,000 dusty, massive galaxies that are busy making stars and were thought to lack quasars. The galaxies are about the same mass as our own spiral Milky Way galaxy, but irregular in shape. At 9 to 11 billion light-years away, they existed at a time when the universe was in its adolescence, between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years old.

When the astronomers peered more closely at the galaxies with Spitzer's infrared eyes, they noticed that about 200 of the galaxies gave off an unusual amount of infrared light. X-ray data from Chandra, and a technique called "stacking," revealed the galaxies were, in fact, hiding plump quasars inside. The scientists now think that the quasars heat the dust in their surrounding doughnut clouds, releasing the excess infrared light.

"We found most of the population of hidden quasars in the early universe," said Daddi. Previously, only the rarest and most energetic of these hidden black holes had been seen at this early epoch.

The newfound quasars are helping answer fundamental questions about how massive galaxies evolve. For instance, astronomers have learned that most massive galaxies steadily build up their stars and black holes simultaneously until they get too big and their black holes suppress star formation.

The observations also suggest that collisions between galaxies might not play as large a role in galaxy evolution as previously believed. "Theorists thought that mergers between galaxies were required to initiate this quasar activity, but we now see that quasars can be active in unharassed galaxies," said co-author David Alexander of Durham University, United Kingdom.

"It's as if we were blindfolded studying the elephant before, and we weren't sure what kind of animal we had," added co-author David Elbaz of the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique. "Now, we can see the elephant for the first time."

The new observations were made as part of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, the most sensitive survey to date of the distant universe at multiple wavelengths.

Consistent results were recently obtained by Fabrizio Fiore of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Italy, and his team. Their results will appear in the Jan. 1, 2008, issue of Astrophysical Journal.

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra program for the agency's Science Mission Directorate. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory controls science and flight operations from the Chandra X-ray Center in Cambridge, Mass. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology, also in Pasadena. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.

The National Optical Astronomy Observatory is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

For more information and graphics, visit http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/spitzer and http://www.nasa.gov/spitzer; and http://chandra.harvard.edu/ and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/main/index.html.



>>>> So... death of dark matter? As i understand physics and relatitity, this would be enough to counter the gravitational affects thought to be responsible by dark matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very interesting report, but I don't see how this accounts for the anomalous rotation rates in the outer portions of spiral galaxies, including our own. That still requires dark matter, or MOND, or something else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the consider the following work by a Ph.D candidate

''Title: Frame-dragging effect (spinity) lets dark matter become uncessary




Wanchung Hu

PhD candidate,

National Taiwan University, Johns Hopkins University

Correspondence should be addressed. Email: whu@jhsph.edu


Abstract
A force called spinity can be derived by the frame-dragging effect predicted by general relativity. The spinity formula (SJmD /r^2,S=2G/c^2) is derived by the gravitational field induced by rotating mass. Dark matter theory was proposed due to the discrepancy of virial mass and the mass estimated by mass-to-light ratio. Considering spinity in the deduction process, virial mass is reduced to be 2*(Rtotal*V^2)/(G+S*R^2*ω*D) and closer to the mass estimated by mass-to-light ratio. Thus, dark matter is not so important that we thought previously. Spinity is an exciting force; its characteristics and effects should be studied further.

PACS Nos: 95.10-a




According to the prediction of general relativity, a rotating object will drag the space-time along with it. This is called frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring effect). There is correspondence principle between gravity force and the geodetic effect predicted by general relativity. It means that space-time curvature induced by mass can be described as Newtonian gravity in classical mechanics. Thus, in classic physics description, a rotating central object will similarly generate a force to let smaller object rotate around the central object. But, there is no formal name for the fifth basic force. I propose to call this force-Spinity. The force is due to “spin” of central object. The initial S can stand for Spinity constant as well as Schwarzschild constant. The “ity” means the force is a basic force like gravity or electricity. Below I will discuss the new force and its effect on dark matter. According to the Tartaglia’s and Mashhoon’s papers (translation of Lense-Thirring’s original paper), the gravitational filed induced by spinity is given by [1,2,3]:

G=SJ /r^2, S=spinity constant, J=kMR^2ω(angular momentum of central object, k=2/5 for sphere), r=distance from the center of central object(Mass=M) to the center of the small object(Mass=m), R=central object’s radium, ω =angular velocity of the central object, =unit vector

We assume that the small object is rotating around the central object in the rotating plane of the central object. The small object is receiving the spinity force:

F= SJmD /r^2 (1)

D is a differential factor, D=1- ωs/ωc, ωc=angular velocity of spinning central object, ωs=orbital angular velocity of small rotating object. Thus, for a positive force F, ωc must be greater than ωs

When a smaller object is rotating around a central object in solar system or galaxy, the formula for the small object rotation movement is given by:

GMm/r^2+SJmD/r^2 =mrW^2 , W=orbital angular velocity of the smaller object (2)
The spinity-to-gravity ratio is
SR^2 ω*D/G (3)

The above formula doesn’t disobey Kepler’s third law of planetary motion: r^3/T^2=constant. Spinity can solve many phenomenon observed in the universe. Spinity can explain the swirl shape of galaxies. It can well explain the ring formation in the rotating plane of huge planets in solar system such as Saturn or Jupiter. It can explain why the nine planets in our solar system are surrounding the Sun in the same direction and same plane. It can explain why the satellites in our solar system are surrounding the planets in the same direction and same plane except Triton of Neptune. Uranus has special characteristics with its 90◦ degree axis tilt. And, its ring and satellites are still rotating in Uranus’s equator. It has been postulated that an asteroid or comet hit Uranus and caused its axis tilt. Spinity can bring Uranus’s ring and satellites to its new equator plane. Gravity cannot explain the phenomenon. In addition, D factor is added due to the observation that small object orbital rotation is decreased when its orbital rotation angular velocity is greater than the angular velocity of the spinning central object. For example, the satellite-Phobos of Mars decelerate about 1.8m per century.

Nebula theory is the dominant theory of solar system formation. However, it faces a difficulty that Sun has only 2% angular momentum of the total solar system and Saturn and Jupiter have the greatest angular momentum in the solar system. Spinity can cause the angular momentum transfer from Sun to planets surrounding it. The Kepler’s second law points out the conservation of angular momentum in the solar system, so our Sun rotates in a slow velocity and its spinity can be much less than that during the initial formation of solar system. Gravity always attracts smaller objects toward the center and it cannot explain the rotation behavior around central object if only gravity exists. Spinity can explain the initial force causing the planets rotating around the Sun. After the spinity decreases to be much less than gravity, planets can still rotate around the Sun due to inertia. And, gravity can prevent the planets from escaping the solar system.

The galaxy’s total mass can be derived by two methods: virial mass and mass-to-light ratio. Virial mass is estimated by Newton’s gravity law. However, there is great discrepancy between the mass estimated by virial mass and the mass estimated by mass-to-light ratio. The virial mass is much larger than the mass from mass-to-light ratio, so researchers proposed dark matter theory saying that there is invisible substance contributing to the virial mass. It was estimated that 80%~90% substance of the galaxy is composed by dark matter. However, the virial mass should be corrected if the spinity is considered.


When the glalaxy is rotating in the same plane, the virial mass can be derived by:

Virial theorem: dG/dt= ΣF*r+2Ek=0
-2Ek=ΣF*r(Virial theorem is effective in a forever bound system like galaxy,dt=∞)
Mtotal=N*m,

dUs(spinity energy)=F*ds=F*r*dθ=τ*dθ=-SJmD dθ/r
(Extra work is needed when moving smaller object from inner orbit to outer orbit. Because the spinity energy in outer orbit is greater than the spinity energy in inner orbit like the gravitational potential energy, there is a minus sign in spinity energy formula. When r=∞, spinity energy=0; spinity energy is negative at any finite r)

sigma F*r=-0.5*{(G*N^2*m^2)/Rtotal+(S*N^2*m^2*R^2*ω*D)/Rtotal}
=-0.5(G*Mtotal^2+S*Mtotal^2*R^2*ω*D)/Rtotal

Kinetic energy(Ek)=0.5*N*m*V^2
=0.5*Mtotal*V^2

Virial theom: Ek=-0.5 ΣF*r

0.5*Mtotal*V^2=+0.25*(G*Mtotal^2+S*Mtotal^2* R^2*ω*D)/Rtotal

Virial mass:
Mtotal=2*(Rtotal*V^2)/(G+S*R^2*ω*D) (4)

Compared to original Virial mass: Mtotal=2*(Rtotal*V^2)/G

From the above formula, we can see the virial mass is reduced due to the effect of spinity. Thus, virial mass can be more similar with the mass from mass-to-light ratio. From the above formula(2)(3), we can predict the S(spinity constant) value. Because the spinity in solar system is much less than gravity, we can predict spinity constant by calculating the nine planets’ movement. The largest D factor in solar system is produced by Neptune; the D factor is 0.99(1-25/60223) for Neptune rotating around the sun. The predicted S(spinity constant) should be less than 10^-22. Based on previous studies, the spinity constant is predicted to be equal to Schwarzschild constant:2G/c^2.[3,4] If we use S=1.5*10-27(2G/c^2) for calculating the virial mass for Milky Way galaxy, the denominator can be much more increased. (G=6.67*10^-11 Nm2Kg-2,R=6*10^19m for central bulge diameter of Milky Way galaxy, ω=10^-16circle/sec for angular velocity of Milky Way galaxy, D=0.1(1-220/250) for the Sun rotating around the central galactic core). Virial mass of Milky Way galaxy should be 10^5 less than original predicted virial mass. All the values are from http://www.wikipedia.org. For the case of Uranus, Uranus’s satellites can receive 10^12 to 10^14 Newton spinity force from Uranus in current Uranus’s angular momentum with S=1.5*10^-27. If we assume S=1.5*10^-27 to calculate the spinity received by Sun from Milky Way galactic nuclear, the spinity is 10^5 N greater than gravity of all the rotating stars in Milky Way galaxy due to the spinity-to-gravity ratio. Thus, stars in galaxy can have enough force to maintain their rotational velocity. When the spinity constant is greater than 10^-32, the virial mass can be greatly decreased. The importance of dark matter should be decreased. Dark matter theory is proposed due to the discrepancy of predicted galaxy rotation curve and observed galaxy rotation curve as shown in Fig. 1. In predicted galaxy rotation curve, rotation velocity should be decreased while the distance increased like our solar system. However, the rotation velocity can be maintained if we consider the effect of spinity. When the spinity energy of galaxy is decreased to much less than gravity, the galaxy rotation curve will fall to fit predicted galaxy rotation curve like our solar system. When the the galaxy nuclear in a wide diameter spins fast and the angular momentum of central nuclear is still huge, there is still enough spinity force to maintain high rotational velocity for galaxy. In addition, the spinning angular velocity of central object is higher than the orbital angular velocity of the small rotating object considering D factor. Therefore, the typical galaxy rotation curve can be nearly predicted. The typical curve reaches a maximum in the edge of galactic core, and then it decreases sharply. Then, it becomes a flat line. Thus, dark matter theory’s importance is decreased.

Although Newtonian force needs dark matter, general relativity doesn’t require the need of dark matter. Previous two studies pointed out the dark matter is unnecessary under the framework of general relativity. [5,6] Gravitational lensing effect is thought to be the evidence saying that dark matter exists in the framework of general relativity. However, frame-dragging effect can also induce gravitational lensing.[7,8] It suggests that dark matter won’t be necessary to explain the gravitational lensing in the peripheral of galaxies. A recent paper found that dark matter doesn’t exist in elliptical galaxies.[9] If dak matter really exists, it should also be found in elliptical galaxies. Spinity can well explain many phenomenons in our home-Earth. Spinity can explain why retrograde satellites are more difficult to make than prograde satellites because retrograde satellites need to overcome the spinity of Earth. Flight from America to Japan takes longer time than flight from Japan to America, because retrograde flight needs to overcome our Earth’s spinity. In summary, spinity is an exciting force, and its characteristics and effects need to be studied further.






References
[1] B. Mashhoon, F. W. Hehl, and D. S. Thesis, General Relativity and Gravitation 16, 711 (1984)
[2] A. Tartaglia, Europhys. Lett. 57, 167 (2002)
[3] L. A. Gergely, Z. I. Perjes, and M. Vasuth, Phys. Rev. D. 57, 876 (1998)
[4] R. T. Hammond, Rep. Prog. Phys. 65, 599 (2002)
[5] H. Balasin and D. Grumiller, astro-ph/0602519 (2006)
[6] F. I. Cooperstock and S. Tieu, astro-ph/0507619 (2005)
[7] M. Sereno, Mon. Not. R. astron. Soc. 344, 942 (2003)
[8] J. Ibanez, Astron. Astrophys. 124, 175 (1983)
[9] A. J. Romanowsky, N. G. Douglas, M. Arnaboldi, K. Kuijken, M. R. Merrifield, N. R. Napolitano, M. Capaccioli, and K. C. Freeman, Science 301, 1696 (2003)''


>>>> Which is all work i figure that could be used to answer for black hole frame-dragging.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then i predicted that:

It seems to me that the hidden dimensions, curled into very tight spaces, are in fact perfect micro-chambers, to contain the idea I had in mind concerning the gravitational field’s need for the presence of dark matter; I propose that it doesn’t. Instead of saying that the mysterious matter is the extra source, created mathematically by scientists to answer for the gravitational source of the universe, saying that it might be stuck inside the hidden dimensions of spacetime. But why should it be this exotic substance? Why can’t it just be something we are struggling with at the moment already? Like a diluted sea of microscopic extremal black holes?

An extremal black hole will have a ground state of mass that is proportional to its charge and angular momentum. This means that the black hole will either radiate particle pairs at a much slower rate, or they won’t emit the particles at all. The following equation describes the curvature of spacetime round a massive spherical body;

ds^2=-c^2(1-2GM/c^2r)dt^2+(1-2GM/c^2)^-1_dr^2+r^2d^2

The curvature produced by this weak sea of black holes i predict would sufficient to stabilize the gravitational forces needed. Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;

a=(GM_ ß)/d^2=mg

Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity, and thus;

g=(GM)/d^2

So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole in the conventional way, you could measure it against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;

M=gd^2/G

We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms. To make an accurate measure of the gravitation being produced in the hidden dimension, we would need to take the content of the proposed dark matter, which is about 25% of matter in the universe (as predicted by NASA), and spread that out in a uniformal distribution throughout the dimension, take the gravitational affects of the black holes, but we are dealing here with very small calculations for each extremal black hole. We would need to work out how many of these micro black holes would be needed, and if they represent particles, then the sea of black holes would have a finite number of particles consistent.
The gravitational acceleration, is then simply given as g=(GM)/d^2, and calculating the mass is gd^2/G.

To take into account the mass of this black hole sea, we can estimate the amount of matte required, proportional to the what the theory predicts. Dark matter coves 25% of all matter, so, in theory the same amount of matter would be needed to make up the gravity needed in the sea. Even just as important, we would need to scale the density D of the universe, against the radius 10^26, and measure how diluted this matter really is. We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).

I work out that there will be something like 10^9 particles that make up the black hole sea. This would mean that there is about a billion more particles making this sea, than there is the normal baryons found in matter. Neutrinos might be so lightweight that they can travel between dimensions. They would also naturally form under the relativistic effects on the energy deposition rate via neutrino pair annihilation near the rotation axis of a black hole normally, but here we are talking about a Kerr black hole. And also, these black holes won’t radiate photons or neutrinos. They’re stable radiatively.
Electron neutrinos or even antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons or protons into neutrons, the two forms of beta decay. As we already know, about 50 trillion neutrinos pass through our bodies in just under one second! They originally came from sun. They are a gravitational king for this matter, and are themselves classed as being a form of dark matter. A source of frame-dragging at a very small scale would radiate from this sea of black holes. The black holes will spin at the speed of light, just like macroscopic black holes. The Centripetal force is proportional to the centrifugal force (F=mrW^2).

A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10^-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as lambda=h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 10^16 K, which is 200 GeV.

Might the curvature produced from the extremal black holes be seeping into the other dimensions, producing the gravitation thought to be answered through the use of Dark Matter?

It was Wanchung Hu, a PhD candidate in Taiwan who inspired this idea. He explains that Frame-Fragging is essentially a renormalizer of dark matter. It answers the superfluous gravity that doea not match the volume of density/t.

Then he might have been a promotor of string theory. I am beginning to think string theory is actually a mathematical beautification, not representing dimensions, as seen in matter as strings and loops, open and closed, bound and unbounded, but rather ''states found in subdimensions.''

We take for granted that by jumping into a black hole, space and time become so twisted, they switch roles. If this be the case, then physics, we should learn from any standard course of such reversals, would mean a reversal in the system of charge, momentum, spin and even time. It would become a time-reversed reversed entity/

In wormholes, string theory, [which in laymen for sake of arguement, is the notion that points do not exist in spacetime] strings might be mapping out cubsuface laters... or looking at this from a mathematical jargon, imaginary subnumbers...

The reason why i am saying this, is because i want he string theorists to admit something. That the theory in principle is very unlikely to be true*, it still has helped physics develop in other places, such as Landscape helping the Standard Theory of Parallel Universes let [ALL] branches split off, not just the Everett ''Original Universe Split Theory,'' alone.

* But has an undeniable chance.


>>> But the evidence suggests that hidden dimension have nothing to do with it. But i was on the right track: A mass amount of black holes that account for a source of frame-dragging disproving dark matter through Wanchung's Hypothesis.

 

Just goes to show that there's lots more to learn, before we go jumping to conclusions!

Nice post. I'd like to see more about the distant observations of obscured quasars, and perhaps more insight on the theory of "spinity".

 

Thank you Dr Wagner. Nothing more than would give me pleasure to study these for you and post more results today and within the nest few days.

 

Extensions to The Wanchung Hypothesis

''Please notice that I use a D factor here

Spinity formula is SJmD/r^2


J=MR^2Wc(W=central object spinning velocity)

W*D=Wc-Ws=Wcs(central object spinning velocity minus small object orbital rotation velocity)

Spinity=SmkMR^2Wcs/r^2 (k=2/5)

Wcs is relative velocity.''

 

''In the milky way galaxy, I use the velocity as follows:

Sun=220KPC ,orbital rotational velocity

Galactic core=250KPC, spinning velocity


It is interesting that:

Rest mass creates gravity field, rotating mass creates spinity field;

Rest charge creates electric field, moving charge creates magnetic field

Thus, gravitospinity vs electromagnetism ''

W. Hu Ph.D Cand.

 

Based upon information by:

Based on information in:
Science and Engineering Research Council
Royal Greenwich Observatory:

Here are some of the black holes candidates before this major discovery. Spinity and gravitational warps must play an intrical part in our miscalculations and hallucinations we call ‘Dark Matter.’

Name of
Binary System Companion Star
Spectral Type Orbital Period
(days) Black Hole Mass
(Solar Units)
________________________________________
Cygnus X-1 B supergiant 5.6 6-15
LMC X-3 B main sequence 1.7 4-11
A0620-00 (V616 Mon) K main sequence 7.8 4-9
GS2023+338 (V404 Cyg) K main sequence 6.5 > 6
GS2000+25 (QZ Vul) K main sequence 0.35 5-14
GS1124-683 (Nova Mus 1991) K main sequence 0.43 4-6
GRO J1655-40 (Nova Sco 1994) F main sequence 2.4 4-5
H1705-250 (Nova Oph 1977) K main sequence 0.52 > 4
________________________________________

Wanchung Hu Proposed his Frame-Dragging Theory for all large masses, and thus as you can see from his work, he found calculation from Wiki on the planets. It struck me that he was correct, and that perhaps something mysteriously sinister was behind the biggest source of Frame-Dragging: Black Holes.

Because there (was) a massive amount of missing black holes, I suggested they were distributed early on as a diluted sea of extremal black holes consisting of about 10^9 particles… more to this, I added they were enclosed within dimensions.

I was wrong, and that there might not even be any in any of the dimensions, because we have now found a massing clump (a supergravitational source of black holes….) Literally hundreds of them. Now that we can answer for the presence of the missing black holes, we can now assume that Wanchung’s Hypothesis has just become stronger.

The only difference, is that my argument is that there MUST be a critical amount of black holes… That even the frame-dragging of planets becomes negligible: Only effecting the dust of the cosmos to be precise. For those interested in the math of Frame-Dragging, consider the following:

r_s=2GM/c^2

is the Scwartzchild Radius, then the Kerr Metric is worked out as:
c^2d tau^2=(1- rsr /p^2)c^2dt^2- p^2/ Λ^2\dr^2-p^2d θ^2 – (r^2+a^2+ rsra^2/p^2sin^2 θ) sin^2 θd phi^2+2rsra/p^2d phi dt

And this entire equation can be made into a short set of abbriviations:

ρ2 = r2 + α2cos2θ
Λ2 = r2 − rsr + α2

 

Reiku,

I am having trouble following your logic. First of all, theory predicted there should be a supermassive black hole at the center of almost every large galaxy. In the early universe, these black holes should have been quasars because they would still be feeding on the abundant gas and matter still inside the galaxy. This theory was not verified because we looked at many large galaxies in the early universe and didn't see any of the bright quasars shining inside them. These were the 'missing black holes' that were theorized to be there, but we couldn't detect them. What this new paper points out is that those quasars inside the newly formed irregular shaped galaxies were indeed very energetic, so energetic that the radiation they were emitting was above the visible wavelength, mostly x-rays. Spitzer and Chandra see in the x-ray to gamma ray wavelengths and were used to study approximately 1000 of these distant, early galaxies. They discovered 200 new quasars that had been missed before by optical telescopes. There is only one quasar in each galaxy, unless two galaxies happen to be merging. So, theory was upheld. Even the irregular galaxies have now been verified to contain central Black holes. I fail to see how you believe the discover of supermassive black holes in irregular galaxies lends further support to Wangung Hu's 'frame-dragging theory'. Frame-dragging results in spiral galaxies, not irregular galaxies. The new paper doesn't disprove his hypothesis, as a spiral galaxy is a later evolution of the newlyformed irregular galaxy. Remember, a quasar is just a supermassive black hole that is feeding intensly, gorging itself.

These newly discovered black holes are one supermassive black hole per galaxy. How did you go from that to oceans of micro black holes? There is no connection that I can see. If Wanchung Hu is correct in his hypothesis, there is no need for large amounts of dark matter or your ocean of micro black holes. He hypothesizes that 'spinity' force drops off rapidly to begin with, then levels off to an almost constant force with little further reduction in strength. That, of course, would explain the observed rotation curves of galaxies, but I see no evidence for the spinity force itself. He has taken an observation (galactic rotation curves) and postulated a new force to expain the observation. In other words, he put the cart before the horse.
Edit: BTW, MOND gravitational theory has been around for years. It operates in much the same manner as Hu's new force, but still has not been able to explain other evidence of dark matter not in conjunction with galactic rotation curves. MOND hypothesizes that gravity itself first drops of at the observed inverse square ratio, then 'changes' to an almost flat-line force, just like Wanchung Hu's 'spinity' force.

 

Hi

''I fail to see how you believe the discover of supermassive black holes in irregular galaxies lends further support to Wangung Hu's 'frame-dragging theory'. Frame-dragging results in spiral galaxies, not irregular galaxies. The new paper doesn't disprove his hypothesis, as a spiral galaxy is a later evolution of the newlyformed irregular galaxy. Remember, a quasar is just a supermassive black hole that is feeding intensly, gorging itself.''

Yes.
The early universe would have produced these black holes, but we couldn't find them. Just before they had, Wanchung hypothesized that Frame-Dragging, the relativistic phenomena could answer for gravitational effects we are observing.

The only trouble i had with this was these missing black holes - macroscopic black holes, a lot of them, could answer for the early universe development, resulting into todays galactic formations. Now, at the time, it was only one theory that they should be as Quasars. I hypothesized that if scientists can assume that dark matter is within the dimensions, then so could there have been a diluted sea of extremal black holes.

Now, i like to take my theories to the extreme, but with these black holes found, they could answer for so much gravitation we hadn't taken into account before. My theory is now irrelevant, (i was only ''on the right lines'') thus instead, i want to glorify Wangchungs idea, because it makes sense to me.

An Ocean of Black Holes, as you put it, would be confined within the chamber. The gravitons could then very freely pass between dimensions as they do universes. But take into account these hundreds of black holes... there will be even more, and of great size, frame-dragging with natural gravitational attraction would answer for dark matter. Sure of it, because i don't believe in the stuff.

 

Now spinity in the early universe would have been pervasive, especially if there were as many black holes as there are being claimed.

''If Wanchung Hu is correct in his hypothesis, there is no need for large amounts of dark matter or your ocean of micro black holes. He hypothesizes that 'spinity' force drops off rapidly to begin with, then levels off to an almost constant force with little further reduction in strength.''

Which is fine, except he made this assumption before the discovery of the black holes. Now, assume that we should have been analysing a discrepency; which we call dark matter, using black holes and Wanchungs spinity solutions and frame-dragging effects.

 

Ok... do you think i'm wrong...?

Just take into account:

1. The amount of black holes at t=0

2. Wanchungs spinity formulae and relativistic frame-dragging

3. And the time required

Also, let's face it, black holes are so much stronger than planets... they quite literally drag spacetime round with them. So do planets, but the effect against black holes, as i have already suggested is negligible.

 

Right... sine i won't be getting any immediate personal notes, i'll make a few myself. First note that the above work was comprised two years ago: by myself, and i have just recently up-dated the info.

Here are some things that strike me as being candidates for a new theory of unification:

The Rest Mass of an object, is found to be proportional to the gravitation… I’l put this in idiosynctratical calculus – simply because I am too lazy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:

(R_m- G)

And the gravitation, is found through the energy of a system, which you cannot present more proper than:

1.(E=Mc2) or 2.(M=E/c^2)

The first was actually the latest equivalence. Poincare developed the second equation, and I use it probably less frequently, but both are the same and give the same result.

Now the rest charge is found to be proportional to the electronic field, and its gravity causes a thing to rotate*** causing a field of magnetism. The equations describing this force must be accurate; here we can resort to the Anthropic Principle. If this is exact, a planet, indeed, any body (not sure about black holes), will create dipoles.

Noiw, magnetism is also a fundamentally elusive force. The search for the magnetic monopole has not proved fruitful. Since the 1930’s, vigorous research has gone into finding this, but has failed.

Instead, why not try and unify gravity, as Wanchung had been doing, with magnetism, but unifying them as somehow the same affect, just working different roles simultaneously? Motion excited the magnetic field. Then so does gravity. Gravity is only useful with acceleration, since acceleration is curvature and curvature is gravity. What if motion is a non-fundamental field?

The only force right now I can think of that would have something to do with motion, is the Aether Field; an all-permeating field that allows all matter to cohere and interact with each other. This field is almost like a law of motion. It mediates motion.

Now, suppose again, that gravity would be negligible without acceleration: Which is true. Now we must also assume the same with magnetism. Why should there be a quanta involved? Of course, some have postulated that the electromagnetic forcefield may not even require a monopole: If this be the case, why not with the graviton>?

We related force with f=ma, and because of this, we ASSUME that mass is involved. That’s not always true, since energy alone can be responsible for its own force giving off a momentum of a punch:

E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2

Where momentum is related to mass:

p = Mv

So we need not really say mass has anything to do with force, since hypothetically, we could be using only energy… but people like to argue, that because of the E=Mc2 equation, both mass and energy are the same: Which is true, to a degree… And I’m not trolling here. IT’S TRUE…

Even Einstein knew that there was no such thing as matter… there was only energy he concluded, so… so much for his equivalance. It seems only important when matter is present, which at exactly the billionth of a billion of a billionth of a billion of a billionth of a billionth of a Chronon x 1,000,000,000 there was only energy.

This energy was electromagnetic as well, causing a spacetime curvature through momentum in a vacuum. I hope everyone can see where I have been going with this, so for now, I shall remain quiet, and when I get more critique, I shall finish my Unificational Theory.

*** Which is quite different to ‘’The Wanchung Hypothesis’’, which is the term I coined for the following work presented at the bottom of the page. Instead of saying that gravity causes spinity, and spinity magnetic, I would rather use the following above. This by no means makes my hypothesis correct, but a generalized theory.
The Wanchung Hu Hypothesis

Ph.D candidate; a potentially great scientist has proposed that…

‘’Rest mass creates gravity field, rotating mass creates spinity field;

Rest charge creates electric field, moving charge creates magnetic field

Thus, gravitospinity vs electromagnetism ''

Excerpt: Myself

His latter point still remains true, and plausible. So plausible, I cannot see anything alse that could overthrow such a postulate. Gravity, is only one side of a four sided-time-quantum coin. Then Gravitoelectromagnetism is also one force, and so is the weak and strong, being unified with electroweakstrong at 100GeV…
Then the total unification, which is so much beyond our own current reach, is Gravitoelectromagnitoweak-strong. The force is known entirely as ‘’Quantum Gravity.’

 

I've fucking posted this in the wrong place... daft me...

 

Reiku,
I will tell you what I think is the greatest obstacle to unifying electromagnetism with gravity. It is 'time'. Particularly our present concept of time as offically defined by atomic clocks and relativity theory. This 'time' is based on electromagnetism and the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. I like to call this 'relative time'. But, in my view, there is also another method of describing time that is not alway compatible with relative time, and that is of course absolute time. It is my hypothesis that both can exist in the same location, at the same 'time'. Let me try to support what I mean.

First let's consider the 'curved spacetime' near a massive black hole. There is no doubt that an atomic clock will slow, and then nearly stop as it approaches nearer the event horizon of a black hole. We have verified the effects of gravitational potential on cesium and rubidium clocks by many experiments and our GPS system. But is it 'time itself' that is actually slowing as the atomic clock moves deeper into the gravity well, or is it that the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum that is changing, altering the 'tick rate' of the atomic clock that is based on electromagnetic interactions? I believe the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum is altered by gravitational potential, affecting the tick rate of the atomic clocks and all electromagnetic process, such as decay rates of atoms, etc. So, we observe 'time' as beating more slowly as we descend into a gravity well. So far, everything matches concensus. So now I will attempt to describe the 'other' time, absolute time. Assume that atomic clock is falling into a supermassive black hole that is large enough that tidal forces are not intense enough to destroy the clock near the event horizon. This is not just speculation, it is true for exremely large black holes. As the atomic clock falls into the black hole it will, of course, slow its tick rate as I stated earlier. Near the event horizon, it will essentially stop ticking according to a distant observer outside the black hole. But 'absolute time' has not stopped in that location, only 'relative time'. The clock will still orbit the black hole. It will orbit faster and faster as it nears the event horizon. Very near the event horizon, the clock will appear to stop beating according to the distant observer, but the clock will orbit the black hole at near the speed of light, the speed of light in the distant observer's rest frame. That is the 'other' time, the absolute time in the universe. Motion of objects with mass is not slowed near the event horizon, only electromagnetic processes. My view is that absolute time preameates the entire universe, with 'pockets' of relativistic time occuring where the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum has been affected by gravity. I think this is due to an 'aether' premeating the vacuum, which is affected by gravity. I know this is a 'crackpot' idea, but I also believe it is a pretty accurate description of what is 'really' happening in our universe. Just my humble opinion, of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll think about it.

 

That's what I've been talking about for a loooong time.
And here's a recent thread about it. A scientist that is making progress on the concept of two time dimensions:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72566

The additional time dimension would be one of the dimensions necessary for God to exist. The other one would be the extra space dimension. (You may disregard this last paragraph in the discussion.)

Obviously, time itself will not stop. Our perception of time, however, will.

I think the keyword if motion. If there is motion there is time. Motion can only exist with time, right?

I totally agree with you. It's not crackpot. In fact, I've always seen the universe in the same way.

 

''I think the keyword if motion. If there is motion there is time. Motion can only exist with time, right?''

Yes, motion=time.

''I totally agree with you. It's not crackpot. In fact, I've always seen the universe in the same way.''

We need aether field in quantum mechanics... it's UNAVOIDABLE.

''That's what I've been talking about for a loooong time.
And here's a recent thread about it. A scientist that is making progress on the concept of two time dimensions:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72566

The additional time dimension would be one of the dimensions necessary for God to exist. The other one would be the extra space dimension. (You may disregard this last paragraph in the discussion.)''

And i've explained, the Hawking has shown that two time dimensions cannot exist.

 

Really? Let's see what Hawking said, then.