# Black Holes May Supply Up to Half the Universe's Energy Output

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Green Destiny, Nov 2, 2010.

Messages:
1,211

3. ### SaquistBannedBanned

Messages:
3,256
I wonder what took them so long to come to that particular conclusion. If almost every major Galaxy has a Black hole ...a supermassive...black hole and considering the "firepower" and appetite of these monster it seems likely that black holes in general are responsible for more than just half.

5. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Oh yes I agree.

And even after $10^{1500}$ years, all matter will have fissioned or fusioned together, and all that will be left to rally on will be these monsterous entities.

7. ### kurrosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
793
They seem more concerned with quasars rather than just galaxies with supermassive black holes, which makes sense since our black hole isn't doing much in the way of energy output, whereas quasar jets outshine all the stars in their host galaxy. The article is claiming that there may be a lot of quasars out there that we haven't been able to see with current instruments because they are obscured in various ways, which in turn means the total quasar population could contribute a lot more energy than just the ones we see easily.
At least that is the meaning I get out of the article.

8. ### SaquistBannedBanned

Messages:
3,256
Not if you believe in the White-hole theory.
It's hard to imagine but the laws of physics are being twisted and warped in side a black hole so I suppose there could be a wormhole leading to a white-hole withing the event horizon orbiting the singularity.

I know but I'm considering interval.
I mean right now we're not detecting many. Many may not be active but the potential is there especially considering how common galactic collisions are. It's almost a very random, variable number to pursue. like trying to measure how many light bulbs are actually on, on the night side of the planet at any particular time.

9. ### chaos1956BannedBanned

Messages:
238
But even these monstrous entities balk at the power contained within infinitely many different expanding universes. I'm sure if we were to zoom out far enough to be larger than our universe we would still look like a spec in comparison to our "sky". The "black hole" a speck to ourselves.

10. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
So far, I am seeing interpretational clashes, and exotic objects which are not permitted by quantum theory.

If people want to believe that black holes are gateways to other universes, then I guess this depends on whether one decides to believe more than one universe exists. I don't personally. It kind of defeats what we call a universe, if there is more than one.

Also, white holes are not permitted by quantum laws because they have been shown to go against the second law of thermodynamics, so they are generally considered a psuedoscience, as lovely as they might seem at face value.

Messages:
4,304
Why?

12. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
The word ''universe'' or even ''universal'' is supposed to encompass ''everything''.

Messages:
4,304

14. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
The English Language is built on logic. Etymologically-speaking and also logically and conceptually-speaking, the notion of other universes existing outside our own fall into difficult comprehension, and also one which suffers from being of no consequence at all from inside our universe.

Philosophically-speaking, it becomes redundant to even comprehend other universes because there is no way to ever discover one.

15. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
Nonsense. The English language is a conglomeration of languages from every peoples in northern Europe, as well as Latin. There's no logic to it.

16. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Sure there is logic.

The word universe, was not just chosen because it sounds good. The history behind it is logical. The reason why certain parts of the word universe where chosen, from latin, and french I think, are also logical - they are logical not only why there where chosen, but logical in their meaning as well.

17. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
And even if you don't agree with me, you never replied to the most important part:

Etymologically-speaking and also logically and conceptually-speaking, the notion of other universes existing outside our own fall into difficult comprehension, and also one which suffers from being of no consequence at all from inside our universe.

Philosophically-speaking, it becomes redundant to even comprehend other universes because there is no way to ever discover one.

ps. maybe we require fraggle for his opinion.

18. ### SaquistBannedBanned

Messages:
3,256

Careful.

Of course there is some ogic to the English language.

Gui Yuan-xinga argues that there is a flaw in that view.
Personally...until there is evidence of another universe I'll resign my belief.

19. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Hi saquist,

Could you tell me what he says, in a nutshell?

20. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Life is always one step ahead of language. There are lots of concepts for which we are struggling to come up with the appropriate new words; whereas on the other hand how many words are there that are waiting for meanings? Sarah Palin notwithstanding.

Uh.... only the jargon of scholars even pretends to be logical. When left to the devices of the general population, they do the most utterly illogical things, like taking the "in-" off of "inflammable," which means "capable of being inflamed." Or turning "dive" into half of a historically incorrect strong verb, with "dove" as its past tense, but without completing the transformation with "diven" as the obvious and logical past participle.
I avoid using the word "universe." If I'm talking about the volume of space that we can observe, I use the proper term "our Hubble Volume." If I'm talking about the entire space-time continuum, regardless of its geometry (Euclidean or Lobachevskian and therefore open and infinite both spatially and temporally, or Riemannian and therefore closed and finite in all or most of its dimensions), and regardless of how infinitesimal a portion of it is not completely empty (if our Hubble Volume really is all there is--something that we don't even know for sure--then outside that paltry radius of less than one trillion light-years there's a whole lot of nothing, but what the heck, "space" is after all another word for "nothing"), I just call it "the space-time continuum."

The concept of a multiverse--which is usually defined rather imprecisely with a lot of arm-waving--shakes up our terminology.

This is a perfect illustration of language breathlessly chasing after civilization, lacking good words for new concepts and often being expanded with words that are anything but "good." I have often asserted on this website and elsewhere that scientists are notoriously bad communicators, and the language they invent seems almost deliberately crafted to impede understanding by laymen. Just consider how the definition of the word "theory" in science ("proven true beyond a reasonable doubt") is at odds with both its definition in mathematics ("absolutely true"), and its definition in detective work ("a hunch I came up with over breakfast"); is it any wonder laymen in all sincerity dismiss things like relativity and evolution as "just a theory?"

It's as though science is a medieval guild craft, and outsiders are not supposed to understand it until they've gone through their apprenticeship and sworn an oath of secrecy.
That depends rather heavily on what exactly the words "another universe" really mean. Sci-fi writers have no trouble crafting scenarios in which there is a greater or smaller bandwidth for the exchange of information and even matter and lifeforms among them. After all, if the ridiculous concept of a wormhole across "warped" space is now accepted as theoretically possible, if only in microscopic dimension, then why couldn't it also work across the boundary between universes, when--I might remind everyone--both "boundary" and "universe" aren't even properly defined yet?
In my capacity as Head Linguist around here I confidently and authoritatively insist on defining "the universe" as "everything that exists" in philosophical definitions. E.g., if everything we can see was built or otherwise given form by some invisible creature with enormous intelligence and power, then that creature clearly exists and by definition is part of the universe, so this model of the Big Bang does not answer the question, "Where did the universe come from?" and doesn't even get a grade of E for "effort."

But in scientific discussions the word is used in too many different ways, particulary meaning either "our Hubble volume" or "the entire space-time continuum." Many cosmologists are now leaning toward the conclusion that those two things are identical, but even if that's true I don't think clarity and understanding are enhanced by blurring the distinction between the two concepts. I'd like to read about why they believe that our Hubble volume comprises the entire space-time continuum, and in order to do that we need a precise vocabulary with different words for different definitions.

So as I said, I try to avoid using the word "universe" in scholarly, scientific discussions.
English is Anglo-Saxon, a Western Germanic dialect brought to Britannia after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It then went off to evolve in its own direction with a Celtic substrate, some Latin additions from the Roman monks who stayed behind, and then a massive superstrate of Norman French which resulted in wrenching changes to its grammar, phonetics and vocabulary. This was followed by centuries of scholarly absorption of words from Latin and Greek and finally business, political and technical absorption of words from all over the world. We also make up our own words, primarily from Latin and Greek but also other sources, and since the age of universal literacy acronyms have become a new form of word-building. In the last century we even invented a new grammatical form: the noun-adjective compound such as fuel-efficient, computer-literate and labor-intensive, which finally frees us from the limitations of our tiny, almost unexpandable set of prepositions from the Stone Age which are supposed to be able to describe every possible relationship between two words.
Both of those statements are too extreme. The logic is there but it's hardly sound. It's only been since the rise of the classical civilizations (India, China, Greece, Rome, etc.) with their writing systems, that the task of creating new lexical components (words, syntactical techniques, etc.) has come under the partial control of scholars. Before that it was almost entirely intuitive. The vector of intuition is still powerful: we all know that "humongous" is a word that was made up for fun and we wink at it, but how many of us know the same is true of "rambunctious," a word that is no longer considered slang?

Why do words like "cleave" have two exactly contradictory meanings? The hold of logic over language is tenuous!
"Universe" in fact is a venerable old Latin word, formed from the roots un- for "one" and vers- for "turn," meaning literally "all turned into one" or "all together." "Universe" was coined as a translation of Greek to holon, "the whole" (cf. "holistic," "holography").

Need I point out that in the Greco-Roman era the concept of a/the universe was considerably different than ours? They had the most naive and mythical ideas about everything that lies above the earth's surface, most of what lies below it, and anything beyond the regions on the surface of which they had reports from explorers. They would not understand the context within which we're arguing over the meaning of the word. For us to go back to the days of the word's origin and use what we find as a basis for clarifying its definition today is a misguided effort.

21. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
That is very refreshing, and I don't dare argue on the linguistic side. As a note to everyone, I asked Fraggle to come here to share his views. I thank him for his efforts.

Hoever Fraggle, I have noticed you are not so well-equipped in physics, perhaps only it's terminology. This is why I must protest against some of your contentions on that area, but it is very good that you took this time out, and I thank you again.

22. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Now, there are supposed to be an infinity of universes. Tell me, everyone who wants to take part, even in a philosophical discussion, the pros and cons.

23. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Don't be too respectful. I'm not a professional linguist, I just play one on the internet.
Thanks for bringing this interesting thread to my attention. I've been too busy at work lately and haven't been able to stray as far from my own subforums as I like to.
My credentials in physics are even less respectable than in linguistics. I'm a former future scientist who did three years of undergraduate work at Caltech before I changed majors and universities. And that was fifty years ago when we thought everybody should increase their energy consumption, drink three glasses of milk every day, and smoke only filtered cigarettes.

However, as I already noted I have a big problem with the terminology used by scientists. I believe we all have the qualifications to speak out on this problem, since all but a handful of scientists are dismally bad communicators and need all the help they can get. "Theory" is perhaps the most obviously horrible choice of names for its referent, but "universe" is right up there. Whether or not "the universe" is exactly congruent physically with "our Hubble volume," it is not identical conceptually. Macrocosmologists have not yet convinced me that they've determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire space-time continuum is squashed into our Hubble volume, which would mean either that it has been proven to be a finite Riemannian space, or else that they're using an exponential coordinate system to make a finite space look infinite. That's just as dirty a trick as calling a canonical principle of science a "theory." Or telling us with a straight face that empty space is expanding, even though it's not really empty, and all the light waves in it are being stretched, but not the light waves within solar and planetary atmospheres, but that's okay, go away kid you're bothering us with your impertinent questions.
Don't just protest, please argue. This is a discussion board so let's have a discussion. I'm hardly an authority here.