My Black Hole Hypothesis

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by fedr808, Feb 21, 2010.

  1. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Hey you guys, so Ive been doing some thinking on the subject of black holes. And I think I came up with a somewhat decent hypothesis.

    Again I am stressing the word "hypothesis" I do not consider it to be a scientific theory right now because of course I have not been able to test my hypothesis.

    So I would like it very much if you guys dont throw around the same disdain you give to other people whom offer theories on this board and call me a woo woo. Unlike other people I dont believe that my hypothesis is infallible and I hope it isnt. So if I sound like I am trying to disprove other notable theories (tried and proven) of physics, please tell me because that is not my purpose at all.

    My hypothesis has to do with the center of the black hole, the gravitational singularity. And especially what exactly causes the intense gravity (In my hypothesis an entirely new form of matter, but please read on otherwise all of this will sound crazy without any of my justification), and what makes up the gravitational singularity.

    Now we all know how tied together matter and energy are. Einstein's theory of General Relativity basically states that matter is highly compressed energy. And we all know about Hawking radiation which shows that black holes are not perpetual devices, and that the gravitational singularity of a black hole is a place of infinite density and no volume (according to standard measurements of course). These are the concepts with which I hope to base my hypothesis on and if someday in the far future I am lucky enough, my theory on, but this is about the now.

    So my theory (I am going to use the word theory instead of hypothesis simply because I can type it faster, but be aware I do not imply that this hypothesis is yet a scientific theory) has to do with the gravitational singularity of a black hole. I believe that there is an entirely new kind of matter being created that is at the center of the black hole and is the cause of the tremendous amounts of gravity a black hole can exert.

    A black hole sucks in matter and energy around it, depending on it's location these can be tremendous amounts of matter and energy, or small amounts. Now I believe that because of neutron degeneracy pressure we cannot have normal matter at some point inside the black hole, because there is so much matter that it is being compressed so much like in a neutron star. At some point the pressure is enough to take the matter and reconvert it back to energy. Neutron degeneracy pressure is a simpler explanation of the effects of the Pauli Exclusion principle I believe, in that no two neutrons or their derivatives can exist in the same place in time and space.

    But energy itself including light can exist with multiple "energies" (I did not know a better word for this) in the same place. So the matter has to be changed into energy in order for it to fit inside such a compact space.

    So once it is converted much of it is sucked into the gravitational singularity. This could explain why the gravitational singularity can be so small, because since energy takes up no space near infinite amounts of energy can be in a single space in space time, such as the Gravitational singularity of a black hole. Of course, I am not implying that a Gravitational singularity has infinite amounts of energy, I am referring to the capacity for how much energy can exist inside of it. The energy in a gravitational singularity is a finite number depending on how much it absorbs and it loses through Hawking radiation.

    Now, energy in itself cannot exert that much gravity on matter, if any. What is needed is some sort of matter to do that. But the fact is matter by our convenetional understanding would be too large to exist in a gravitational singularity.

    But I believe that some new form of matter is created in a gravitational singularity. Think about it. Matter as we know it came from energy, the best example is a supernova. Large amounts of energy focused in a large area creates matter. Same thing goes with the big bang. The more energy that is focused into an area means the more complex the kind of matter that is created is.

    The matter we are familiar, atleast the most complex forms were created during supernovas or even the big bang. The amount of energy released may have been very large, but it was spread out. Think of a black hole's gravitational singularity, tremendous amounts of energy is focused into a miniscule amount of area. The fact is that maybe there is some sort of matter that would be created in that sort of environment. Because by far the Gravitational singularity focuses more energy on a single spot than any other thing that we know of by a long shot. So what if with that much energy some new form of matter, far more complex than what we understand right now is formed.

    This new matter would have to have the primary charecteristic that it is extremely dense, and that it requires and stores tremendous amounts of energy when it is created. And that it is extremely small.


    So this is my hypothesis. Once more I am not saying it is infallible and please do not call me a woo-woo. So what do you guys think?
     
  2. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,160
    The singularity at the center of a black hole comes from GR. However, quantum theory is ignored and attempts to take it into account lead to nonsensical results. In summary, no one really knows what goes on inside a black hole. In particular the possibility of a zero volume infinite density point mass (singularity) seems highly unlikely.
     
  3. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    I would add to mathman's post that ( as so many seem to do these days ) you assume the existence of Hawking radiation. There is zero evidence of HR.

    The Fermi telescope went up in 08, and one of it's missions was to measure HR. It's been well over a year, and still nothing.

    Additionally, HR has been hypothesized for so long it morphed into a theory ... a theory that some physicists/mathematicians are beginning to doubt after around 35 years of study/research.

    The LHC may provide evidence, but it has not yet. Even if black holes DO leak ( extremely slowly ) there are other problems with the process.
     
  4. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    But when you have that much energy in such a small space something has to happen.

    The fact is matter is highly compressed energy, if you have an area of space with that much energy compressed into such a small space. It would be reasonable to assume some sort of matter has to form.

    But when you think about it math, the only other explanation that it is the massive amounts of energy in the center of the balck hole seems equally if not more unlikely.
     
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    First off, as far as this hypothesis hawking radiation does exist we are pretty darn sure of it. If it did not exist than the LHC would kill us all. But also more importantly is the process of detecting it.

    The fact is that Hawking radiation is emitted inversely proportional to the size of a black hole. Any normal sized black hole releases extremely small amounts to the point where between the small amount released and their distance from earth there is no way we can measure them.

    So we are left with micro black holes which emit relatively large amounts of Hawking radiation, but considering they only exist for a microsecond it really is a question of being in the right place and the right time in order to observe it.

    If there were no Hawking radiation than black holes would be perpetual motion machines which seems rather unrealistic.
     
  6. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285

    Really. Would you mind providing the evidence of 'mini' black holes? I do not think the LHC has actually created any. If they had, Hawking would already be up for the Nobel.

    As far as being 'pretty darn sure of it', I respectfully disagree. The Fermi telescope was DESIGNED to detect the particle emissions from HR. So it is rather silly to start suggesting after the fact that they are 'undetectable'. If that is true, then we wasted an awful lot of money on a machine to detect HR.

    Furthermore, I don't think you understand the length of time it would take to 'evaporate' a BH of several BILLION sols. And you also are apparently unaware that even if they did 'leak' physicists have no clue what would happen at the end. Would they 'evaporate' all the way? Or leave a healthy sized remnant?

    There remains ZERO evidence of HR, and currently there is no known experimental way to test it. The LHC was supposed to accomplish this, but it remains to this day .... HYPOTHETICAL.

    As for your last comment, I fail to see how BHs would be 'perpetual motion' machines. They are clearly extremely dense. Extremely massive. But they are not machines in any sense of the word. They all have varying amounts of mass/gravity. They all affect matter/energy around them, depending on their gravitational attraction. They affect the shape of space. And they are constantly evolving. MERGING with other black holes. Swallowing massive amounts of CMBR, and other mass/energy. Even if HR existed, mathematicians assure us that they all 'eat' WAY more energy than they HYPOTHETICALLY emit from HR.

    These objects are anything but 'static' phenomena.

    May I suggest you do a little more research on the subject ....
     
  7. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285

    Really. Would you mind providing the evidence of 'mini' black holes? I do not think the LHC has actually created any. If they had, Hawking would already be up for the Nobel.

    As far as being 'pretty darn sure of it', I respectfully disagree. The Fermi telescope was DESIGNED to detect the particle emissions from HR. So it is rather silly to start suggesting after the fact that they are 'undetectable'. If that is true, then we wasted an awful lot of money on a machine to detect HR.

    Furthermore, I don't think you understand the length of time it would take to 'evaporate' a BH of several BILLION sols. And you also are apparently unaware that even if they did 'leak' physicists have no clue what would happen at the end. Would they 'evaporate' all the way? Or leave a healthy sized remnant?

    There remains ZERO evidence of HR, and currently there is no known experimental way to test it. The LHC was supposed to accomplish this, but it remains to this day .... HYPOTHETICAL.

    As for your last comment, I fail to see how BHs would be 'perpetual motion' machines. They are clearly extremely dense. Extremely massive. But they are not machines in any sense of the word. They all have varying amounts of mass/gravity. They all affect matter/energy around them, depending on their gravitational attraction. They affect the shape of space. And they are constantly evolving. MERGING with other black holes. Swallowing massive amounts of CMBR, and other mass/energy. Even if HR existed, mathematicians assure us that they all 'eat' WAY more energy than they HYPOTHETICALLY emit from HR.

    These objects are anything but 'static' phenomena.

    May I suggest you do a little more research on the subject ....
     
  8. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    Either way, there are many ways to shoot a bunny, and not allway do the bunny die.

    Imagine that there was a singularity inside the black hole. Tell me now all it's properties, does it balancely preform a fusion with the suroundings, without changing it's inner being, and if so, just like you multiply 1 with another querry, does it yield the same answer as the querry multiplied with one?
    If that is the case, wouldn't it by it's forcefield create an relativistic mass of the same properties in all it's surrounding environment hence imbue all things with the property that we can experience our surounding without changing our inner most being the 1 multiplient even though our environment change.

    That, my friend, is what I think has happened, that is why I'm wrighting this.
    Because if hawking is right, that hole will get infinite energy from the singularity, that most likely is a photon, just like any other matter in the hole.
    And then it blows up with infinite energy in the bag. Big Bang, I call it. Real Big Bang.
    Now I'm telling you allready, the singularity effect on my mass was about 25 years ago. Because then I began to feel. Not as a human mechanism, but for real.
     
  9. vidgametester Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Does radiation get sucked into a black hole?
     
  10. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    Yes but there are 2 ways for it to get out, either the black hole gets infinite heat and thereby looses its gravity, or the matter in the hole simply tele's out through a quantum trace by geting excitated so much that it's quantum trace swells to a size enough for calling it a valid teleportation.
     
  11. desi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,616
    Like dark matter?
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    No, dark matter would take up too much space for it's density.

    It would be the kind of matter we would have never, ever, ever seen before because this is the only environment it can be made.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well its not infinite heat, just some amount of heat at all is okay.
     
  14. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Nobel-winning scientists do not know what happens at the center of a black hole -- yet you do?

    Whatever happens happens well inside the event horizon. What happens inside the event horizon stays inside the event horizon. There is no need to explain what is going on inside to explain the huge gravitational field of a black hole. From the perspective of an outside observer, *nothing* crosses the event horizon. The infalling mass appears to be frozen in time and place at the event horizon. That is why black holes were called frozen stars or collapsed stars before someone came up with the catchier term black hole.


    I think this belongs in pseudo science. You can have it moved out of pseudo science when you get some mathematics behind your ideas.

    Mod hat: Moved to pseudoscience.
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    DH, I never said I knew.

    I actually very carefully tried to phrase my entire message around the fact that I don't know, that this is a hypothesis.

    A hypothesis is an explanation for an observed event, anomaly, or any observable action. It does not have math behind it and it has not been proven.

    I never once said in my hypothesis that I disagreed with any physicists or that I considered them wrong. I hold these physicists in the highest regards and I do not consider my hypothesis to be nearly as major as these scientist's life work.

    I constructed my hypothesis in the hopes of connecting the dots of what we have as theories around black holes and the unknown.

    DH, I am not proposing something that defies physics that I know of. I constructed it in the hopes that it could explain how a single point in space with no volume can have such a massive gravitational pull.

    DH, not once have I said that I know this for a fact, nobody does, there are theories, which of course are as good as it can get. But this is a hypothesis, please do not treat me like the sort of trash that posts their own ideas, call them scientific theories and facts and attempt to defy the greatest minds in physics.

    D H, please move this back, i did not post this because I wanted people to take it as fact, or to show I am some sort of genius.

    If I had the room my title for this thread would have been "My Black Hole Hypothesis, "What do you think"?"

    Because the fact is that I am the only person that I know of that has posted this hypothesis (although I am not denying the chance that another physicist probably more knowledgable might have), the reason I posted this was because of that fact. When a person reads over their own work, they probably wont notice blatant errors or something that is wrong in their work, and it's not their fault, it's perfectly natural.

    What I honest to G-d wanted was for you guys to look at this, and point out these blatant errors and things that are wrong in my hypothesis, because I know as a fact (or theory, whatever you prefer:eek:) that there are things I probably missed.

    Please D H, treat this with more respect, you know me, I am not the kind of person that would post this with the intention to show what a genius I am, or how this theory changes all the rules of science. I am the person that would like you guys to look it over, and say what you think, what may be wrong, and how I could improve it.

    If I were that kind of person I would have called it My Black Hole Theory

    DH, please move it back, Im 16, I do not know the level of math to prove this without effectively bull*&%$ing you guys, and I do not want to lie. And I will not lie.

    I built this theory with supports made from other quantum theories and used walls I built from logic. I honestly don't have mathmatics to prove it, please, just humor me.

    Actually the annoying thing about this thread the only criticism Ive read so far doesnt have to do with my hypothesis but the theory of Hawking Radiation which is not mine.

    And while Id really be annoyed if people dismissed this as idiotic simply because the person that thought of it was 16, I would really appreciate it if I could get some unbiased feedback.
     
  16. desi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,616
    What properties would this matter have, as it can only be made in this rare environment?
     

Share This Page