Before I start, I should note, I'm the type of person that likes to look at all possibilities. This does not mean I necesarily believe in such theories, I just don't see a complete truth made up of facts, so I like to look at all possibilities that don't contradict the relatively few absolute facts Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. String theory intrigued me, and I like the idea of multiple dimensions as well as multiple universes. My thoughts on Black Holes: I believe it is entirely possible that each black hole is the begining to a new universe in another dimension. Once a black hole has gathered enough particles to 'fill' the hole, overfilling causes an explossion of particles in that new universe. I would also think that the black hole would become dormant after it has overfilled. I think of it like this: Take a extremely strong vaccuum and attach a small bag. Then have a bigger bag attached around the outside. The vaccuum represents a black hole. The small bag represents the strong gravity that holds the particles together after they go through the vaccuum. The bigger bag represents a new universe. When the vaccuum is on the dirt it picks up represents the particles the black hole is taking from the original universe. Now turn on the vaccuum and start sucking dirt until the small bag bursts, and the beginning of a new universe has been simulated Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. The magority of theories about the beginning of our universe starts with one superforce, but where did the superforce come from? I believe it is very possible that our universe started as a black hole in another universe. It makes since why we have dormant blackholes in areas that are busy (like the center of every known galaxy), because those black holes already overfilled and started a new universe! We could be the other side of a dormant blackhole from another universe. If this theory were to have any truth, then our universe would be just one of many. The superforce that once was one in our universe would only be a small speck of what the original superforce really was (the begining of all universes)!! Anyway, I'm not sure where I got all this, it kinda just came to me, but I'm sure it came from somewhere other then myself, lol. I subconsciencely disregard things until I'm ready to explore them, and therefor I don't always remember where my ideas come from Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. But I do like to think outside the box, and I see this as one of many possiblities.
I wonder how long it will be before this ends up in Pseudoscience or Cesspool. How do you "fill" a black hole? BTW it's not a theory: it's speculation.
How do you fill a black hole? More particles on the otherside than what the gravity can hold. How many particles and/or how much gravitiy would be just one of many unknowns. I'm guessing not all black holes are the same size, so the amount of particles and the strength of the gravity are likely variable numbers anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. BTW It's not speculation neither. Some of it might be me speculating on a small part of possibilities within a theory. But new theories are being explored. Quantum physics have started exploring things such as string theory and other possibilities that involve multiple dimensions as well as multiple universes. Now I ain't no Stephen Hawkins, and I don't know enough to fully explain any of these theories, this is just me exploring new possibilities now that new theories have helped me think outside of an even bigger box Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
The more mass you put in the stronger the gravity gets, and the larger the hole becomes. I suspect you're taking the word "hole" too literally. Ah, you're guessing. You haven't bothered to look anything up? Black holes have ONLY 3 properties: mass, charge and spin. The gravity will vary with mass. It's not speculation "neither"? It's certainly not a theory. You're posting in a hard-science subforum: the word "theory" has a specific meaning in science, one which your SPECULATION does not even marginally approach. That's evident from your posts. And it's HawkinG. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please tell us exactly what a "dormant black hole" is and which absolute facts support this.
So you think blackholes continually grow and there is no limit. Your opinion is different then mine. So what causes a black hole to stop becoming active then? You seem angry, relax. You seem to think you know alot and obviously you don't like opinions that vary from yours. If you disagree you could simply say so without attacking. What did I make another spelling error or something? I'll just call it a non active blackhole then. And almost all galaxies have one right at the center of them (including our milky way). As for absolute facts, they are tough to find in situational experiences. I have said there are very few absolute facts. I don't look for support from absolutes, but rather I try not to contradict what is known. I look for possibilities, that don't mean it is the truth.
Except that yours is an opinion (unsupported), and my view is the current scientific one... What makes you think they do stop being "active"? Angry? Disgusted probably. As stated above: you're speculating (without, apparently, looking anything up) and I'm gibing the known data. So it's a case of uneducated speculation versus someone who'd actually bothered to learn. Several, but in the case I listed it IS the guy's name. WTF is does "non-active" mean? If it's a black hole it pulls in anything it can get. If it doesn't then it's not a black hole. Is this more speculation or actual? Link? AFAIK the black holes at the centre of galaxies are anything but "inactive". You try not to contradict what is known? But can't actually be bothered to find out what is known before speculating. "Inactive black holes" being one example... Filling them up being another... Keep going, this is amusing.
You almost said it, the current scientific OPINION. Not facts. Because there are dormant blackholes already proven to exist. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevent to me. Well if that's the case you should look into String Theory, Quantum physics, multiple dimensions, dormant blackholes, etc.. Because there are clearly some important things you haven't bothered to learn yet. Not all black holes are active. Therefor there must be a limit as to how much it pulls in. Once a black hole is no lorger active, if you want to call it something other than a black hole, that makes no difference to me as long as you know it was once a black hole that is no longer active. If the black hole at the center of the milky way were to become active, our entire galaxy would be in big trouble. Most black holes at the center of galaxies are inactive. This is not speculation, but I'm sure an educated scientist like you will have no problem finding your own resources, I sure as hell ain't gonna go look everything up for you! This is amusing, you come off like some extremely educated person that believes in science, and yet you seem to think black holes are already completely understood and they continually grow and are always active, lmao.
Oh dear. You ARE aware that science doesn't do facts as such: it's observations and "what we currently know". Not the same thing as your opinion. Link? Again. Look into? What would you describe as "looking into"? Does the physics degree work not count as "looking into? Bullshit. See previous answer. It IS in big trouble. Maybe you didn't "look into it" enough. Ah you can't be bothered to conform to the forum regulations. If you make a contention you're supposed to support it. Otherwise you're talking out your ass. Believe in science? :shrug: Until evidence is shown to the contrary then certainly they remain active. But they don't constantly grow (and I didn't say anywhere that they do). A black hole that doesn't accumulate matter will most likely eventually decay and disappear altogether. Maybe that's what you mean by "inactive black hole": and empty patch of space where one used to be...
To clear some stuff up: It is known that there are black holes within our universe that are no longer active. What is not known is why these black holes are no longer active. It is my opinion that they have already 'filled' up. It is unknown where everything that enters a black hole ends up. It is part of string theory that recognizes the possibility that what enters a black hole ends up in another dimension. One possibility is that each black hole opens the doorway to another dimension and that each dimension has its own universe. Big Bang theory starts as the begining of each individual universe has gathered more particles then can be held, and BOOM, a new universe is born. A black hole that has gathered more particles then it can hold (which causes a Big Bang in another dimension) becomes dormant in its original universe (it is no longer active, and does not suck things in any longer). I do not have details of the entire theory, I just have my opinions on black holes within these theories. I hope that helps Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not allowed to post links yet, but searching for String Theory and Dormant Blackholes is rather easy to do. I found a Nasa article on Blackholes that had this to say: "Nearly every massive galaxy seems to have a supermassive black hole, but only a few percent appear to be active. Our galaxy's central black hole is dormant, and this and similar black holes are not included in the Swift census. All black holes were likely once active, and why some remain active and others are dormant in the modern, local universe is a mystery."
Link? Or another speculation? Inside the black hole. Really? Which part of string theory says that? You don't have a theory at all, just speculation.
If I keep debating back and forth with you, I'll be at 20 posts and will be allowed to provide links, but as of right now, I'm not allowed to give a link yet. Type in dormant blackholes on google and go to the Nasa link, a few paragraphs in, it will say: Nearly every massive galaxy seems to have a supermassive black hole, but only a few percent appear to be active. Our galaxy's central black hole is dormant, and this and similar black holes are not included in the Swift census. All black holes were likely once active, and why some remain active and others are dormant in the modern, local universe is a mystery. The part that explores multiple dimensions with multiple universes while trying to explain gravitational force uses the strong gravity of black holes as one possible explanation. Your right, it's not my theory, I have opinions about current theories that are still being explored. String theory is not yet complete, nor is any theory that involves multi-dimensions. These are new theories that have not yet been tested. These theories are being explored to be combined with standard modern physics theories but they are suppose to help answer some of the unanswered questions surrounding gravity. The more these theories have been explored, the more and more starts to fit in. String theory has been reffered to as 'the theory about everything' for a good reason. But my speculation is still very much on a real theory. Oh and by the way Dyw, I guess I should let you in on a secret. The current scientific world knowns there are dormant black holes, and the current scientific world is all for exploring many new possibilities including string theory and other multi-dimensional theories that might help explain things more fully. Also, I wonder how old that physics degree is, if it is even real, lmao. Having a physics degree most certainly does not mean you know everything about the entire universe, for there is much that remains unknown. Look into recent discoveries when you do research, because these days are days of new discoveries all around us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah, I see you're misunderstanding the word "dormant". http://www.humboldt.edu/~phyx/faculty/kornreich/Curious/MWBlackHole.html Dormant is not "inactive" or "filled up". "The part that"? It's a completely theoretical sub set: one of many possible interpretations. And unlikely to be tested. Nope: as shown above, it's based on a misunderstanding.
WTF? You are misunderstanding that there are many black holes that are not active. These are said to be dormant. In your version of dormant, why would blackholes at the center of almost all galaxies be dormant, when there is plenty of matter around for them to suck in? Wow, I'm begining to understand, you are a high school kid aren't you? You come off as a know it all, and I actually thought you might know something, but you don't seem to understand much about what is happening in science today. Dormant is inactive. Look a little harder. 'Filled up' is my opinion on why the black hole becomes dormant, this is my opinion. But a dormant blackhole is a blackhole that is no longer active. Again you don't seem to understand the concept. No there are many different possibilities that have not yet been tested to see which one fits best yet. I like the possibilities surrounding blackholes so I offered my opinions on those possibilities. But the interpertations of what is possible is not what is different, it is that so many different possibities exist until things start getting tested. Wrong, thats how theories are formed, by testing new ideas under many different situations. The collider should help answer some questions. Scientists are very curious about testing out String theory. Misunderstanding yes, but the misunderstanding is that you fail to update yourself with what science is exploring, you are stuck in older incomplete versions of the same story. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And as already explained dormant simply means that they aren't taking in much matter: because there isn't any close enough to grab. My version? The explanation (as already stated) is that they've grabbed everything that was in range and now they're just sat... waiting... Oh well done. Wrong again. Haven't I already mentioned a physics degree? Dormant is NOT inactive. Dormant is doing nothing because there's nothing to do. There is no difference between a dormant black hole and an active one other than the amount of material they have available to pull in. And it's an incorrect opinion. Read what I've written above. There is NO functional difference between the two: the only difference is because of their surroundings. Word salad. You can't test for different dimensions for a start. Wrong: a theory is tested AFTER it's been formulated. Wrong again. Completely. I suggest that YOU Google "Dormant black holes" and look for the definition, not just stick your singular interpretation.
Hi Pipes75. Is that your age or the number of pipes you have? You are a novice. I know because I have only been actively interested in cosmology for about six years, and have logged thousands of hours reading and contemplating. I know enough to know when someone knows a lot, or when they know a little. If you plan to learn a lot then one way to do it is to ask questions, not start by naming a thread "Theory" on black holes or anything else. Your initial mistake was using theory in the name but you started off the thread OK after that. You say you are talking about possibilities up to here, and you convey some of your own ideas, original at that. Try not to use anyone's theories to support your point unless you understand them and can either support them or give us some rationale that puts them in question. You can say what you read, you can link us to urls, you can draw pictures and put them in your own album, and you can give us your ideas. But you can't do all of that until you have 20 posts. There is a probably a reason for that but I'm not on staff. Use your posts wisely so that when you do start a thread you will have asked a few appropriate questions and will know the ropes. Learn to use a spell checker if you have any interest in being taken seriously. If I am wrong about any of this I will take it back. See if this helps. Your idea about a black hole being a universe inside, or where ever it may reside, has more than several flaws. There are no vacuum cleaners that big; just kidding. Think about what the capacity of one of your inactive black holes might be. Maybe it has already consumed its host galaxy and is in the state you suggest, inactive. In that case you have a galaxy's worth of matter and energy, right; hardly anything comparable to the matter and energy in our observable universe. So to the best consensus of science it isn't a universe inside. So let's say you propose the possibility that a whole galaxy is inside a black whole instead of a whole universe in there. You still have a space problem in there. A galaxy would have to have sufficient space to "be" a galaxy. As it stands, inside your black hole ... it is a black hole. It is a black hole that might contain the matter and energy of a whole galaxy but it is occupying an insignificant amount of space unlike a galaxy.
"I believe it is entirely possible that each black hole is the begining to a new universe in another dimension. Once a black hole has gathered enough particles to 'fill' the hole, overfilling causes an explossion of particles in that new universe." This isn't actually as crazy as some of the responses seem to suggest. I know this kind of idea was bandied about back in the early days of black-hole research, but I don't know what its current status is. To be sure there are many issues associated with it. I'm not sure this comes from string theory though; string theory says a lot of crazy things, for instance it is possible that collisions between 'branes' (i.e. universe 'hyperplanes' in some higher dimensional space) cause "Big Bang" like events to occur, but I'm not sure that this is linked to black holes. I don't know much about string theory though.
You mean those things we've actually spotted out in space aren't there? Wrong again. The first part: beginning to a new universe was bandied about (I think it's white holes that come out now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). But "filling them up" is as crazy as it sounds.
