Black Hole Inflation Hypothesis

Tabulated data for black holes of various sizes. Also a simulator showing how matter accretion can account for accelerating expansion. Simple formulas that show nested black holes as a consistent model of the universe.

http://www.geocities.com/jojo_joranum/BlackHoleInflation.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Table is small, hard to read, so I place four rows here after throwing out some columns of less interest to me:

Solar ...........No Escape .........................Radiated.............................
Masses ------Radius (m)____Density-----Power(W) ___Mass(kg/sec)---- Lifetime(yrs)
7.74E-10-----2.29E-06____1.03E+37-----1.50E-10___ 1.67E-27----9.72E+39
62 percent more massive than Ceres asteroid
1 proton mass-equiv. energy emitted per second radiated

4.53E+00-----1.34E+04____3.00E+17----4.40E-30___ 4.90E-47----1.94E+69
density of a neutron star

6.00E+00-----1.77E+04____1.71E+17----2.50E-30___2.78E-47----4.53E+69
6 solar masses, estimated lower limit on mass of star that will supernova

1.50E+01-----4.43E+04____2.73E+16----4.00E-31___4.45E-48----7.08E+70
15 solar masses, typical mass of star that will supernova, estimated mass of Betelgeuse

Note even the first row's relatively small black hole will be around much longer than present age of the universe.

I give reasons (at web site under my name) to believe there are "Many" Black Holes in the range between the first two rows, all still around from when they were formed by the death of the first, very-big, stars in the early years of the universe. More near end of this post also.

By "Many" I mean more than all the stars that currently exist in the universe! In this view, I am not alone. See: Primordial Black Holes - Recent Developments, by B. J. Carr, 2005 at:

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/ti...D Primordial Black/0/1/0/past/0/1?per_page=10

Where on page 6 left column you will find:

"One of the interesting implications of these scenarios is the possible existence of a halo population of binary black holes [116]. With a full halo of such objects, there could be a huge number of binaries inside 50 kpc and some of these could be coalescing due to gravitational radiation losses at the present epoch" (Part made bold by Billy T.)

Please note this refers only to the gravitationally bound pairs of black holes; however, as most stars are such pairs, and the large (50 to 300 solar masses) typical of the first stars almost always died as at least a pair of bound black holes, a large fraction of all current black holes are pairs and probably make to little gravitational lens effects to be detected. Note also that even the smallest in the first row, is giving off too little Hawking radiation to be detected by that means. Only if it should wander into a "gas cloud" would it be detectable, and then it would be mistaken as a weak star, if it can even be seen then. None will bee seen by reflecting sun light!

"Dark Matter," about 97% of the universe according to the experts, is not matter, but "pure gravity." - Is that not a good discription of many, small, undetectable, Black Holes? - Just asking, as I am not an "expert."

Also note that the modeling of a star collapsing to form a black hole is very complex (far byond my abilities); but ALWAYS ASSUMES spherical symmetry. This is no doubt a convenient mathematical necessity, but makes no more sense than the drunk, who dopped his keys in a dark parking lot, searching for them under the closest steet light!

One has only to look at the Crab Nebula, which was a much less violent collapse, leaving only a neutron star behind, to know this is true. There is, however, also some simple physics of the fusion process, which shows spherical symmetry is NOT to be expected. The rate of fusion is determined by the particle density squared and by the population of very fast particles in the "Maxwell/ Boltzman distribution high energy tail." That is, the exponential dependence upon temperature is very much stronger than the quadratic dependency upon density. Consequently, some spot near, but not exactly at, the center of a star about to form a black hole is very likely to have the fastest fusion rate, even though it may be slightly less dense. This is caused by an instability in fusion rate that grows from tiny statistical fluctuations in the local temperature. I.e. if any small, near central volume is even slightly hotter, it will be producing fusion energy more rapidly and become hotter still, even though as it heats, the density will drop to maintain pressure equilibrium.

Thus, the first section of a massive star to convert all its fuel into iron and start to collapse is NOT likely to be exactly at the center of the star. Some of the pieces of the star that are then blasted into space will become relative "fuel rich" from mixing with the outer layers and eventually fall back to form a new, generation II, but still very massive, short-lived (compared to our sun) star, which will repeat this process. That is, the non-symmetric collapse of each of the first stars probably formed a sequence of smaller black holes than the mathematical tractable (currently) spherically symmetric theory suggests. Thus, it is quite possible that the relative small (masses between first two rows of table above) Black Holes are now more numerious than all the stars that have ever existed in the history of the universe!

Why may this concern us?
The perturbation of Neptune that lead to Pluto's discovery was thought have been caused by Pluto. If it was so caused, Pluto's mass needs to be several times that of the Earth to produce the observed perturbation. Consequently Pluto's was thought to be more massive than the Earth, until approximately 1950, when it was learned that Pluto is smaller than the moon.

What caused the perturbation of Neptune? Perhaps a small black hole, passing unseen near our solar system? Was it the second of a pair, or is the second still coming?

For non-black hole possibilities, (old & cold neutron star, magnetic monopole assembly, etc.) see Dark Visitor's Chapter 8 for detailed discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about the case for Q0906+6930? A probable 10 billion solar mass supermassive black hole/Blazar that's thought to be 12.7 billion years old? Any ideas on the subject?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've got to research this. I had not heard of blazars. Sounds fascinating.

 

I'm assuming you understood my ideas on Black Hole inflation. Under my model, I hadn't heard of Blazars either, but I predicted them. The term "supermassive" applied to a galaxy center black hole with only a few million solar masses seemed laughable after I did some research. For a black hole's internal density to drop to solar nebula range and allow star formation inside it would have to inflate to a radius at least equal to the local group of galaxies. That would suggest at least 10 billion billion solar masses. But even before that happens there are the collisions, such as Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way in 5 billion years, when the central black holes could absorb millions, if not billions, of stars. What is termed 'supermassive' seemed trivial.

My model predicts that for a long time black holes will be small enough that they will have to move around considerably for collisions to take place. Collisions will be rare. But at some point, a black hole somewhere will absorb lots of matter, inflate, and by inflating absorb more matter. A chain reaction will occur, I call it "runaway consumption". The black hole no longer has to move around to find something to absorb: it just grows, and by growing absorbs more mass, and so grows some more, and so on, inflating at an accelerating rate until it consumes the whole universe. It would then abruptly stop growing.

These blazars may be recent additions to our black hole universe, absorbed from the aging parent universe outside our event horizon. They're big because most of the matter in the parent universe has been swallowed up by one black hole or another. Humanity may be unique, because we evolved inside our black hole, probably from primordial, "fresh" material, cooked and purifed by the high-density, high-temperature furnace that our black hole was when it was young and low mass. I suspect that if we looked at the star systems orbiting a blazar we would see complex matter, high metallicity, radiation-burned solar systems, etc. Basically uninhabitable by life as we know it. Old and decayed, waiting to be sucked into the blazar and reprocessed, ripped apart and made new again.

Our own galaxy may also be made uninhabitable in 5 billion years when it collides with Andromeda. If the bloating of our own Sun doesn't destroy life, then the bursts of X-rays and Gamma rays from the central black hole might. Worst case scenario is "runaway consumption" of the central black hole, if it swallows enough stars to bloat up to galactic proportions and pull us in. It wouldn't be remotely habitable inside until it has radius equal to the local group of galaxies, so we have no chance of outrunning the growth process that takes place at close to the speed of light. We'd have to reach about 4 million lightyears away to be at a safe distance, especially if we did get pulled in.

To summarize, my Black Hole Inflation Hypothesis suggests answers to the following questions:

1. What came before the big bang? A star with 6 - 15 solar masses went supernova and created a black hole. The black hole gradually accreted mass and grew.

2. Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? About 14 billion years ago our black hole universe achieved sufficient size that it began "runaway consumption". Since an event horizon is a pure geometry boundary, it has no mass itself and is not constrained by special relativity. The geometric size of our universe therefore may expand at superluminal speed, even though the apparent boundary will seem to expand at sublight, appearing highly redshifted, and accelerating. The light from this process is still reaching us.

3. Will the universe expand forever, or re-collapse? The universe is bound by a spherical event horizon, the size of which is determined by the mass contained within its volume. When our black hole event horizon swallows all the matter in the 'parent' universe, it volume will no longer increase in mass, and will abruptly stop growing. It will never shrink, or grow again after that.

4. If the universe is a black hole, won't it evaporate? No. Once our black hole has swallowed the parent universe and stopped growing, there will be so little radiation emitted as to be immeasurable. By immeasurable, that means it is impossible to know if there is any radiation or not. It is effectively a perfectly insulated, adiabatic sphere.

5. What about spooky action-at-a-distance forces, quantum entanglement, etc? Doesn't this suggest a more complicated universe? Since there is no measurable "thing" escaping the bulk universe, there is no detectable reference point to measure space outside. It can be argued then that space doesn't exist outside the bulk universe. Once this assertion is made, it becomes hard to state that space exists at all, even with reference objects. If there is no space, then we must perceive "space" or "distance" separating objects for some other reason, and all particles are superimposed on each other. This perception that things are separate might come about from some property of quantum physics, particle interactions, or somesuch phenomenon. It is emergent. What is spooky may be that there *is* a perception of space, rather than *not*.

6. What is the ultimate reality? Who knows. Perhaps everything in the universe is just a solitary vibration on a single quantum string, capable of exhibiting 10^80 separate vibrations simultaneously. Some vibrations move together, some bounce back and forth between harmonic subsets, and these interactions induce phase shifts. Simple rules on the string give rise to enormous complexity. But there is still the question: What supports the quantum string? And so we keep thinking!

 

I have not read all your post or understood your theory, mainly because I do not think we understand the same thing by "black hole density."

I believe the table is taking the BH mass and dividing by the volume inside the "no escape sphere" but at this sphere, as you know, nothing is happening. There is an other sphere, where light goes "round and round" (except that it is not a stable trajectory). Still others can be defined. There is certainly little matter inside most of the large diameter black holes you you seem to be interested in, because it has fallen inward towards the center. It may even all reside in a point singularity, but quite a few, much more knowledgable than either of us I think, are of also holding a "minority opinion" that all the matter does not fall into one point of infinite density. If they ae correct, would not their density be more realistic than either the one of your table or the infinity of the singularity?

It does not even seem to me to be necessary that the density (when not a singularity and only the volume with mater in it is used to define "density") decreased with the mass. My intution tells be that it would tend to increase with total mass of the BH, but perhaps not go to infinity.

 

The radius of the event horizon is roughly 2 miles per solar mass that has fallen into the black hole.

 

If radius is a linear function of mass inside, then when mass doubles so will radius and the volume is up by factor of eight so density is going down by factor of 4 but this all, as I tried to note, depends on your wanting to include the empty space inside the no escape surface in your definition of density. I tend to think only space with matter in it is the correct space to use when computing "density."

 

Not a biggie, but the Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) of a non-rotating black hole is 1 kilometer for each three solar masses, thus a 3 kilometer radius (a little over 2 miles) would equal 9 solar masses.

 

I recommend reading my whole post. I have a numbered list of cosmological questions that my hypothesis has suggested answers to. I plan on transposing it and adding it to my website.

I understand the doubt about the density. Does a black hole contain a singularity of infinite density, with a density dropping off with radius and approaching vacuum well inside the event horizon? Or does a black hole contain no singularity, rather matter uniformly distributed throughout the inside of the event horizon?

I really don't know for sure. If I take the visible universe as a black hole, then I have to point to observable evidence that matter is uniformly distributed throughout. Not absolutely uniform however, since there are still stars and galaxies, etc. If it weren't for this tentative evidence I would expect a singularity with infinite density. It would be impossible to imagine anything else.

The only conceivable explanations I can suggest for uniform distribution of matter are:

1. A black hole has a zero-net-gravitational force inside, like a hollow sphere where most of the mass is concentrated in the thin shell.

2. There are four known forces, and the formation of a singularity only takes gravity into account. It's conceivable that some combination of electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces might negate gravity inside the event horizon. After all, we're talking about a volume that light cannot escape. Some other carrier of force may take precendence to prevent the "infinity of density", which some might consider an impossibility -- like the existence of a proton-mass black hole for durations less than the Planck time -- an impossibility, only useful as theory but not actually realized, not actually occurring.

3. When runaway consumption occurs, maybe the universe (black hole) expands so fast that it creates a negative pressure that rips the singularity apart. This might be a conventional overpressure. The explosive force might hurl matter outward in pursuit of the superluminal expanding event horizon. Imagine a propeller travelling at lightspeed or beyond and the wind it would generate!

Ultimately, it is hard to explain.

 

Further development of the Black Hole Inflation Hypothesis. I believe I have a plausible solution to the singularity problem in addition to the other solutions to cosmological problems. I've written a paper in professional format and posted it on my webpage:

http://www.geocities.com/jojo_joranum/BlackHoleInflation.html

 

Harmonic Subset, why do you only use the Schwarzschild black hole in your hypothesis? From what I understand, a large Schwarzschild black hole is not thought to exist in nature. Maybe tiny short-lived ones created by cosmic rays entering our atmosphere, for example, but not ones with several solar masses. Are you aware of any non-rotating large black holes? You do realize that black holes created from the collapse of massive stars are almost certain to be Kerr black holes, rotating black holes that are created from rotating stars. The mathematics for a Kerr black hole indicate a ring-shaped singularity, with very odd things happening inside the 'ring', like wormholes. Is this where your black hole universe developes, inside the ring?

 

Just for simplicity purposes, I ignored complications such as rotation, charges and jets, etc. I think my cosmology model is intriguing. And besides, the types of black holes that you are referring to are not so easy to understand. I needed only three simple formulas. Besides, if momentum is conserved, and the universe has zero total momentum, linear and rotational, then as a black hole grows its movement and rotation should slow down. So maybe black holes eventually do become large Schwarzschild black holes, even if they start out spinning.

 

I think you need to check your data. Are you sure you don't have the ratio reversed? According to Wikipedia, the Schwarzchild radius is about 3 km per solar mass...or roughly 2 miles for us Americans who don't think metric.

However, it is a linear function of the mass.

 

You are absolutely correct, Poincare's Stepchild! I got my ratios reversed. Sorry.

 

'SOK. It happens.

"I thought I made a mistake once, but it turns out I was wrong."

 

Harmonic, interesting theory.

My only problem with it is your assumption of 'parent universes'. I do not (yet) recognise any convincing evidence of the existance of branes or 'other universes'. I've read a couple of Michio Kaku's books promoting the idea, but so far all the evidence is circular.

The other difficulty is your conclusion the universe will collapse on itself in a universal black hole. (Personally, I like the idea.) However, this is a variation of the "Gnab Gib" theory ("Big Bang" reversed) and it depends on the total mass of the universe. So far, the information we have indicates there just isn't enough mass - and therefore gravity - to cause cessation of expansion and collapse of the universe.

That information could change, of course. I'll be watching.

 

Archie, I'm afraid you've misunderstood my idea. I defined the parent universe as identical to ours where black holes are formed via a supernova events. For example our visible universe is the parent universe for the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It has nothing to do with branes or parallel universes. Secondly, I have suggested that our universe IS a black hole that has reached it's current state after billions of years of growth. As a black hole grows its internal density drops. When the internal density is low enough it might support star formation and life. There would be no collapse at any time: when the universe inflates to the size of the parent, fully consuming the parent in the process, it would abruptly stop growing. After that it would not change in size at all.

 

This seems to be based on dividing the black hole mass by the volume of the "no escape" sphere (of no spinning BH) As the radius of this sphere is linear in the mass of BH, obviously doubling the mass will increase this volume eight fold and the density drops by factor of four. This is what makes your "BH universe" density drop, but why would you consider the mostly empty space of our universe a BH is beyond me.

Are you effectively admitting that your starting assumption (Total mass/ no escape sphere volume = BH density) is nonsense? It would seem to me that the true density of the BH has nothing to do the volume of the mainly empty "no escape" sphere. Even if we assume the BH is not an infinitely dense point singularity but has some very small finite size of matter filled space, what evidence do you have that the "true density" of this matter filled space is decreasing?

To show the sillness of arbitarily using the the volume of the "no escape" sphere in the calculation, let me arbitarily use the volume of the sphere defined by speed of light times the black hole lifetime (against evaporation by Hawking radiation). This sphere is much larger that the universe for all black hole that still exist.

I.e. I you want to have rapidly decreasing density (arbitarily defined by choice of a "volume sphere") use my just defined sphere, instead of your equally arbitary one.

 

I think you should read the paper first. Obviously Archie did not. He could not possibly have misunderstood my idea, even if he only read the single-paragraph Abstract. Perhaps you should also consider reading the paper.