Black Holes: Key to the beginning and end of the universe?

It's a given that black holes will be around long after all stars have burned all available star fuel (hydrogen). I've heard estimates that, that could be about 500 billion years, but let's play it safe and say one trillion years.

I know most scientists believe black holes will evaporate (via Hawking radiation). When I hear that, the amount of time for that to happen, if it even happens at all seems and feels irrelevant. But even if it does happen it would be a very slow process, like in the hundreds of trillions of years.

Given that bit of information, one would have to conclude that supermassive black holes without stars is their natural state for most of their life cycles.

Note: There has never been a black hole that has exploded (that we know of).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

doesn't make sense does it ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know about that. If the real universe is all about black holes and they do in fact have life cycles. They have to have a way of making new black holes and our visible universe lit up with stars does a good job of that, doesn't it?

I hate to be the one to trivialize our visible universe, but just maybe it's nothing more than a black hole nursery and everything else is collateral whatever.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no , not necessarily

there are other thories

whatever

 

Life! What else? If it wasn't for black holes we wouldn't be here.

 

really

so black-holes create energy and matter ?

 

I didn't say that. But without black holes there wouldn't be any galaxies or star formation. So whatever the universe might be like without black holes, it's not likely there would be any life. I believe black holes are the key to the way things are the way they are.

 

why do you say this ? about without blackholes there would be no galactical or star formation ( by the way there is no OR here )

galaxies can have no stars and exist

but stars cannot exist without galaxies

 

While I believe it is fairly certain that spiral galaxies do have black holes at their centers, it is not certain that all galaxies include a central black hole.

This suggests that BHs do not evolve in isolation. And other than in highly speculative models, we cannot really project what the future of galaxies and BHs is or will be, over the long term.

We are still learning about both. It would be arrogant to believe that what we think we know now represents that last word on the issue.

If there is only one thing we should learn from history, it is that what we think we know today, is seldom what we will think we know tomorrow.

 

My model creates Galaxies from black holes, and science model does too. So it's one of the things I am happy about. Apart from.. I have a pre-black hole stage.

 

but isn't the black-hole based on matter to begin with ?

 

To answer you I have to talk about an alternate theory of our universe. This is not the excepted model of our universe.

I have heard the term dark galaxy before, but I think the writer of that article just didn't know what else to call it. In reality it's just a large black hole with a lot of ordinary dark matter in orbit around it. All black holes pick up matter as they age, but unless they receive a large infusion of hydrogen there will not be star formation. I will accept the term dark galaxy, but I prefer just to call it what it is, a black hole.

I believe in order for star formation to take place there needs to be an environment where it can take place. I can't think of a better place than a large black hole with a lot of mass in orbit about it. I picture the the so called big bang as a recycling of mass in the form of hydrogen and when the black holes receives a large infusion of hydrogen it will become very active usually called a Quasar. The quasar releases a lot of energy that pushes the hydrogen into denser clouds that make what we like to call star nurseries.

Faraway gamma-ray burst reveals what the most ancient galaxies were made of

If you read the article you will see what they think the reason for early heavy elements is. But it also makes sense that a very old black hole might already have a lot of heavy elements in orbit before getting it's infusion of hydrogen and flaring into star formation.

 

Since, by definition, a galaxy is a large scale aggregate of stars then you're wrong. If stars don't exist then there can be no galaxies.

Also wrong.
Try looking up rogue star.

 

but what of the Plasma Universe theory , though

surely you have heard of it

 

If there's a black hole it's already too late for it become a star.
Some stars may turn into black holes, but reversing the process can't be done since the mass/ radius is already past the critical point.

 

That link had a star coming out of a Galaxy, so doesn't do away with the Galaxy.

 

So what?

Read River's claim:

Now, if he meant stars cannot be formed unless there's a galaxy, that's a different question.

 

I was talking about supermassive black holes and the possibility they were already in existence before the so called big bang and the region around them becomes the environment where star formation can take place when enough hydrogen comes into play.

After all if you removed all the stars from the Milky Way what would you have? A supermassive BH and a lot of mass in orbit around it. Add enough hydrogen and you would get massive star formation. Do this on a very large scale and you have a visible universe, which I might also refer to as our local universe.

 

it is

 

Why do you think that?