| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2005 10:35:45 AM |
| Object: |
Black holes and red shift |
The following is an attempt to present a consistent, plausible
explanation of various observed cosmological phenomena.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the ideas have been around
for years. But as I don't recall seeing them in New Scientist
and similar popular journals, or anywhere else, it doesn't seem
out of place to present them here, especially in combination,
as my own.
Most of the discussion relates to black holes, and flips between
the view of an observer inside the hole and another outside.
Obviously an outside observer cannot see inside the event horizon,
and in that context references to "external observers" are simply
a shorthand way of saying the observer is extrapolating their
frame of reference to inside the hole and inferring in their
terms what is going on there (even if strictly this may have
no practical meaning).
Summary
-------
Our universe was formed inside a black hole by an energy bundle
that separated from the base of one or both of the energy beams
at the black hole's poles and was absorbed by the hole.
What we as internal observers see as an initial Big Bang and
subsequent expansion would appear to an outside observer as a
rapid contraction followed by an ever closer approach to the
singularity.
As we explain below, this model of formation plausibly accounts
for:
* the Big Bang itself and subsequent expansion
* preponderence of matter over anti-matter
* large-scale homogeneity, combined with:
* assymetries in energy and matter distribution
* influence of "dark matter"
The rest of this post is divided into two parts:
The first part argues that what we as external observers
(of black holes in our universe) commonly imagine as a
"crushing" encounter with a singularity would be perceived
by an internal observer in that position as the opposite -
everything, including alas ultimately themselves, expanding.
This effect is then identified with our perception of the
Universe expanding (a sort of "equivalence principle"), and
we conclude that the Universe itself is inside a black hole
and, from an external observer's standpoint, contracting.
This has implications for our Universe's future, mentioned
in passing, and of its past, which is discussed in the second
part. There we extrapolate back to when this contraction must
have started and offer a plausible explanation of why and how
so much mass energy could have been produced at the outset.
Expanding towards a singularity
-------------------------------
On crossing, in free fall, inside the event horizon of a black
hole, an observer looking out soon starts to see the universe
outside red shifted and this effect increases the further the
observer falls towards the singularity.
Extrapolating this effect, as the inside observer approaches
the singularity, closer and closer objects including those
inside the black hole, become red shifted until the observer's
spaceship and ultimately the observer themself (in principle,
as they would obviously no longer be observing by then) would
appear to be flying apart at the speed of light.
To an outside observer this would correspond to the conventional
picture of being crushed to a point at the singularity.
However, an internal observer looking out sees events in the
outside universe unfolding faster and faster. In other words,
they are seeing ever faster and further into external observers'
future.
If we accept that once the event horizon is crossed then an
encounter with the singularity is inevitable, the above
equivalence implies that the expansion of our Universe must
eventually (if not already) accelerate until it flies apart
atom by atom. The traveller into a black hole simply
experiences this faster (many orders of magnitude faster)
than those who remain outside.
Pursuing this principle, the existence of a red shift even
outside a black hole and away from local significant
influences of gravity indicates that our Universe itself
is inside a black hole, albeit from our perspective a very
large one (but possibly nothing out of the ordinary to an
external observer and in a universe like our own).
I believe this idea is by now fairly commonplace, although
as far as I know it remains speculative and little exploited.
Extrapolating back to the Big Bang
----------------------------------
We have associated red shift with approaching the singularity
of the black hole containing our universe. So in extrapolating
back into our past it is natural to conclude, even more
paradoxically, that if the matter forming our universe is
enclosed in a black hole then at the Big Bang this matter
must have been, at least at some stage of that process, as
diffuse as possible within the confines of that black hole
(from an external viewpoint).
Obviously matter can fall into a black hole in the normal way;
but this would most likely not have or acquire the necessary
uniformity once inside, nor the energy to liberate vacuum mass
energy as we hypothesise below.
However, a mechanism that might well achieve this would be
if the beams of prodigious energy that issue from the poles
of a black hole become periodically "overloaded" at their
base and as a consequence collapse in part into the hole.
Energy in some form may accumulate at the base, where it is
held for a while against gravity by colossal magnetic fields
and perhaps other kinds of fields. Eventually the energy
density becomes so great that an event horizon, linked with
that of the black hole, starts forming like a cocoon around
the knot of material (or else as a separate "droplet" black
hole which then fuses with the main hole).
Once this occurs it is inevitable that the knot must snap
off from the base of the beam, at which point two things
presumably occur:
Outside the black hole there would be an intense flash of
radiation as loose flux lines and the like reconnect and
perhaps recoil waves of some kind travel up the beam.
Could this event cause the gamma ray bursts observed to
occur at random all over the sky?
Meanwhile, inside the hole a bundle of exceedingly intense
energy is now free of all constraints (except the event
horizon) and explodes at light speed releasing such energy
that the virtual particles, constantly created in the vacuum
spontaneously in vast abundance, instead of recombining
almost immediately as they would do normally, are separated
and caught by gravity.
This is analogous to the thermionic effect, whereby electrons
are boiled of the plates in old-fashioned valves and conveyed
away by a current.
Expressing it in another way, once the virtual particles are
separated and move some way towards the singularity before
having a chance to recombine, they enter space already flush
with its quota of vacuum interactions and zero-point energy
and are thus in a sense perhaps "stranded" in a real existence.
A gamma ray burst is said to be brighter for a fraction of
a second than all stars in all galaxies combined. So if this
is a mere glancing by-blow of the process then perhaps the
main energy bundle safely inside the black hole could
liberate the mass energy of a whole universe.
(As explained in the section below on dark matter, mass
energy created inside a black hole has no effect on it
from an outside viewpoint.)
Explanations for Observed Phenomena
-----------------------------------
We conclude with some indications of how various aspects
of the mechanism described above could account for observed
phenomena which I believe have currently no generally accepted
explanation.
But I haven't strained to try and explain every phenomenon
or cover all angles.
Also, I haven't pursued what happens when the outer
universe, itself in a larger black hole, expands (from
its viewpoint) until the atoms and, of course, black
holes it contains are expanding at light speed.
Uniformity with small-scale Fluctuations
----------------------------------------
It is natural to assume that an ultra-high energy field
inside a confined space expands rapidly to fill the
available space fairly uniformly, and yet in "bouncing
off the walls" so to speak and interacting with itself
will retain small fluctuations.
Inflation Phase of the Big Bang
-------------------------------
In expanding to fill the available space inside the
black hole, and liberate the vacuum energy, the bundle
energy is most likely rapidly depleted, analogous to
the latent heat of vaporization. Thereafter, from an
outside viewpoint, the newly liberated vacuum matter
starts falling rapidly towards the singularity.
But from our "inverted" internal viewpoint among the
matter, it would seem like a rapid expansion, and this
might correspond to the supposed inflation phase of
the Big Bang.
Matter v. Anti-Matter Asymmetry
-------------------------------
If we make the reasonable assumption that the initial
energy bundle is composed of flux lines (or ultimatly
strings a-la String Theory ?) all winding in the same
direction, perhaps that initial asymmetry would explain
the preponderence of matter over anti-matter in our
universe.
Dark Matter
-----------
It seems safe to assume that absorption of a bundle by
a black hole will considerably disrupt its exterior
environment, possibly enough to cause a stutter effect
where one or more further bundles are absorbed. In fact
the initial event could be a modest affair that triggers
a much larger main event. (Detailed measurements of gamma
ray bursters' intensity fluctuations over time might shed
light on that.)
So there may be more than one assembly of mass energy
contracting towards the singularity, in concentric shells,
and each may be influenced by the gravity of those behind
(although this influence would all be one way - see next
section).
From an external viewpoint a the gravity exerted by a
shell would tend to pull the next innermost shell outwards.
However from our inverted viewpoint as internal observers
within this next innermost shell (our universe) the effect
would be of a mysterious shadowy force, over and above
gravity, tending to pull matter together ("back towards
the Big Bang") over large scales.
Arrow of Time
-------------
Even if an energy bundle liberates the constituents of
all the mass energy of our universe, an outside observer
would not then suddenly find the black hole mass had
increased by that amount.
Likewise, as this mass energy contracted towards the
singularity within the black hole, no mass energy inside
any internal "event shell" (spherical shell concentric
with the event horizon) would or could influence any
outside that shell. So that provides an "arrow of time"
compatible with all radial directions towards the
singularity.
In fact I think it has long been known that space and
time coordinates "flip" when the event horizon is
crossed, and this may account for the curious inversion
between expansion and contraction which I claim is the
basic contrast between the viewpoints of internal and
external observers.
Conclusion
----------
Although this account may raise more questions than it
purports to answer (some of which I'm all too aware),
I hope it may prompt an interesting discussion.
The model does at least have the merit of being economical
with new forces and dimensions, by requiring none (although
of course, even if it has any bearing on reality, it may
turn out that a more elaborate model along the same lines
is required).
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jramsden AT glasshouse DOT com)
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
28 Jun 2005 11:55:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The following is an attempt to present a consistent, plausible
explanation of various observed cosmological phenomena.
Given the absence of a single literature citation or a single
equation, Uncle Al declares "*****!" after the first sentence.
[snip]
Summary
-------
Our universe was formed inside a black hole by an energy bundle
that separated from the base of one or both of the energy beams
at the black hole's poles and was absorbed by the hole.
[snip 295 lines]
Told ya.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
29 Jun 2005 08:33:49 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
The following is an attempt to present a consistent,
plausible explanation of various observed cosmological
phenomena.
Given the absence of a single literature citation
Many thanks for your prompt reply, assuming you at least
skimmed the whole post.
If you did, you may have noticed my closing comment that its
purpose was to start a discussion. That being so, like many sci.physics
posts, it's somewhat harsh to judge it by the
standards of a paper in Nature!
or a single equation, Uncle Al declares "*****!" after
the first sentence.
No equations, granted, but a sequence of logical inferences
based on observational facts and widely accepted theories.
Nowhere do I dispute either - quite the reverse: My basic
point is only that looking at the Big Bang from the "other
end of the telescope" so to speak shows, compellingly I
believe, that it, and various related phenomena, can be
explained in general terms using familiar principles and
without resorting to exotic new concepts.
[snip]
Summary
-------
Our universe was formed inside a black hole by an energy
bundle that separated from the base of one or both of the
energy beams at the black hole's poles and was absorbed
by the hole.
[snip 295 lines]
Told ya.
I can't deny this sounds amateurish, and perhaps it was a
mistake to mention it near the start - poor "marketing"
if you like.
But my model needs a compact source of energy to fall into
the black hole, to strip the required mass/energy from the
vacuum, and that seemed the obvious choice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
28 Jun 2005 10:51:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Summary
-------
Our universe was formed inside a black hole by an energy bundle
that separated from the base of one or both of the energy beams
at the black hole's poles and was absorbed by the hole.
Not necessarily so... our "universe" may well be an inflated
region of a bigger entity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
29 Jun 2005 08:59:21 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
Our universe was formed inside a black hole by an energy
bundle that separated from the base of one or both of the
energy beams at the black hole's poles and was absorbed
by the hole.
Not necessarily so... our "universe" may well be an inflated
region of a bigger entity.
I know - There was in interesting article on Cosmic Expansion
and related matters, including that very point, in Scientific
American a few months ago.
The idea I intended to convey was not that the bundle itself
would become, i.e. have, the mass-energy of the new "universe" being
created inside the black hole. That would be ridiculous, because it
only has a minute fraction of the mass-energy of
the universe outside, in which it formed, and no obvious
means to acquire much more once inside the black hole.
What I am proposing is that once inside the black hole, the
bundle does have enough energy to "catalyze" a wholesale
stripping of mass energy (many orders of magnitude more
than itself) from the vacuum.
That is where I made the analogy with currents induced in
thermionic valves, as a black hole is a gravitational valve
of sorts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
29 Jun 2005 12:09:38 AM |
|
|
John close enough to a black hole light
would be emitted so redshifted it could be
larger than the universe.
The theory also says at the event horizon
light of infinite wavelength will be emitted.
Energyless light predicted by General
Relativity? Poppycock.
No infinite light. But light bigger than the
universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
29 Jun 2005 12:15:48 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120021778.635088.184430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think anyone actually buys your homebrew version of pop science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
29 Jun 2005 03:02:42 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:8HAwe.96118$PR6.44815@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120021778.635088.184430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think anyone actually buys your homebrew version of pop science?
Not even Nick does, he changes his mind more often than his underpants.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
30 Jun 2005 09:03:49 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:8HAwe.96118$PR6.44815@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120021778.635088.184430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think anyone actually buys your homebrew version of pop science?
Not even Nick does, he changes his mind more often than his underpants.....
Dunno about Phil, but I change my underpants on the first
monday of the month (even if I don't need to ;-P) - but my
theory stays the same!
Seriously, the black hole diagram at
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1999/43/images/e/formats/full_jpg.jpg
shows at either pole jets comprising magnetic field lines
enclosing and crossing plasma.
The plasma in these jets is propelled away from the poles
at close to light speed, and this process is sustained by
matter falling towards the hole from its accretion disk.
But if matter in the disk is not renewed, i.e. its source
of gas and dust and stray stars etc dries up, then presumably
the process falters - In that event maybe the magnetic fields
near the hole are weakened and dissipated by being stretched
along the plasma moving away from it and possibly the pressure
of the plasma near the pole can then force open, near the base
of the jet, a "throat" through which some plasma can sink into
the hole by the force of gravity.
That's an example of the kind of process I had in mind,
although of course in reality the details may differ.
(Anyone who has watched a Discovery Channel program on
volcanoes such as Pompeii will know that the trouble really
starts only when the eruption subsides and the ash column
collapses. That's when the worst pyroclastic flows occur.
I think the parallel with black hole jets should be obvious.)
Once inside the hole, the plasma is accelerated and at the same
time adiabatically (?) compressed, which (as my model requires)
raises its temperature sufficiently to liberate a vast cascade
of vacuum mass-energy.
And we now, being part of that mass-energy, perceive, with our
reversed perspective of space and time, the original cascade
as the Big Bang.
One implication of this, which I didn't spell out explicitly,
is that far from originating in a singularity and expanding,
our universe can be considered as shrinking towards one!
<scottish accent>
We're doomed I tell ye ;-(
</scottish>
(although probably not for a few dozen billions of years yet).
I know this sounds completely crazy, when all the evidence
says the Universe appears to be expanding; but as I said,
it depends on your viewpoint: Once you're there, inside
a black hole and approaching the singularity, space seems
to expand away from you.
But as we're still here, with no imminent prospect of being
torn apart, one must conclude that our perception of time,
compared to that in the universe containing the black hole
in which ours was formed, must also be altered as was that
of space (and as I pointed out, I think established theory
does relate the two).
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jramsden AT glasshouse DOT com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes and red shift |
30 Jun 2005 09:12:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
T Wake wrote:
Not even Nick does, he changes his mind more often than his underpants.....
Dunno about Phil [...]
Of course I meant Nick (DOH!)
That's what comes of composing offline (which you have
to do with Google groups, to avoid the risk of pressing
the back button and losing the entire post :-< )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
