Black Holes in Relation to An Expanding Universe

44 posts

Flag Post

…terrible title.

A thought occurred to me; If the universe is expanding, could black holes be serving as some kind of… “space drain” (terrible wording).

I.E.: As the universe expands, black hole(s) would serve as a means of either slowing down, reversing, or stopping the expansion.

More or less a “space drain”.

I got this idea while thinking about the moons effect on the tides, whirlpools, and sink holes (thank you National Geographic/Discovery Channel… sadly, not so much Science Channel). Also the theory that “small” things usually mimic the movements and “routine” of “big” things. Atoms to moons, moons to planets, planets to galaxies, etc (again, not totally accurate. But I have to get this down before I forget it).

In this case the universe is a body of water and black holes are the drain at the bottom (you know, the cartoon plug… if not watch loony toons sometime).

I wish I had the proper knowledge to explain this idea better.

As I see it. Black Holes (must) serve a greater purpose than total annihilation of any matter that comes to close. A Big Freeze: the potential effect of universal expansion, pretty much everything being to far away from everything to be able to exist and our universe predominantly becoming little more than empty space. I am not doing the theory any justice… But what if Black Holes are serving as a means of preventing this?(or slowing/reversing as stated above).

Well, I have started to repeat myself. I hope I didn’t sound completely ridiculous, but I would like to ascertain an answer to this question.

I have very little understanding of Physics as a whole. But I am immensely fascinated by it. Sadly fascination doesn’t easily transfer to knowledge. I have a shaky grasp of the “basics”. More or less… But the mathematics behind it are far and beyond me.

Also, why ask on Kongregate?… Why not?

 
Flag Post
I hope I didn’t sound completely ridiculous

you certainly did not.

black holes, though we really don’t know, are often understood to be puncture holes in the fabric of space. imagine a two-dimensional world living in or on a sheet of paper. now if one particular co-ordinate on this sheet of paper gets such a huge mass-density it can no longer hold it, there’ll be a puncture hole in the paper, and everything in that 2D universe would drain out quite like you described.

i’ve never contemplated the idea of the fabric of our 3D space itself being drainable this way, which is an interesting idea. maybe you should give Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawkings or some’ a call.

if only we knew where it went…

 
Flag Post
As the universe expands, black hole(s) would serve as a means of either slowing down, reversing, or stopping the expansion.

Interesting thought, although I think even the largest of black holes are insignificant when viewing the universe as a whole. Currently, the expansion of the universe, if I’m remembering my astronomy class correctly, is accelerating.

As I see it. Black Holes (must) serve a greater purpose than total annihilation of any matter that comes to close. A Big Freeze: the potential effect of universal expansion, pretty much everything being to far away from everything to be able to exist and our universe predominantly becoming little more than empty space. I am not doing the theory any justice… But what if Black Holes are serving as a means of preventing this?(or slowing/reversing as stated above).

While annihilation of matter is probably the likely outcome, we really have no idea what happens to the matter inside the black hole outside of it getting completely ripped apart. The matter may still be there, just in the form of dark matter.

As for the deep freeze, the only thing that could stop that would be a massive influx of dark matter that could increase the overall mass of the universe. Since black holes are nothing more than collapsed stars, they don’t create any new matter.

 
Flag Post
Interesting thought, although I think even the largest of black holes are insignificant when viewing the universe as a whole. Currently, the expansion of the universe, if I’m remembering my astronomy class correctly, is accelerating.

but black holes keep growing, and new ones can occur, but i’ve never heard of black holes disappearing (just merging into bigger ones). so whatever effect they have on the universe, this effect will continue to increase indefinetely.

inevitably, all matter will eventually be sucked into one massive black hole. then what? a new Big Bang?

 
Flag Post

Hawking Radiation is the means by which black holes shrink (and eventually vanish).

Most black holes, I would imagine, are made from stars. If our sun turned into a black hole right now, our earth would continue on the same path it has for millions of years. (The gravitational force between two objects is related to distance and their mass. A star does not suddenly increase in mass when it turns into a black hole, and the distance between us would not change.) This would mean that black holes could not decrease the growth of the universe any more than a planet or star could. Rather, it does so exactly as much.

 
Flag Post

@Ketsy
Things that move near the speed of light experience slower passings of time, imagine things that are smaller than us, or things as microscopic individuals, when supernova happened despite experiencing instant increase in entropy, they’d experience a new universe maybe developed new forms of life.
Imagine we are now experiencing an explosion, but to us it feels like life is happening as it is. We in an explosion, everything in us is actually moving near the speed of light in relative to creatures “outside”.

This indefinitely Omega was talking about could happen could truly is happening but maybe in forms of fractal in terms of “speed of light”. So one explosion gave birth to a new universe, within the new universe there were their own version of explosion and “speed of light” therefore gave birth to new universe, and so on and so on.

As long as there are still things being sucked into black holes, the black hole will kept on growing and influencing the universe, somehow maybe it might influence some meteors to move towards the sun, upon landing, making the mass of the sun bigger and bigger. The sun would ended up sucking planets around it, and then sucking everything else.

In conclusion of what I’m talking about, imo we don’t have to worry about this (except for astronomers of course, in purpose of making the beauty of the whole thing accessible for us), existence will continue one way or the other.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Sleepallnight:

@Ketsy
Things that move near the speed of light experience slower passings of time, imagine things that are smaller than us, or things as microscopic individuals, when supernova happened despite experiencing instant increase in entropy, they’d experience a new universe maybe developed new forms of life.
Imagine we are now experiencing an explosion, but to us it feels like life is happening as it is. We in an explosion, everything in us is actually moving near the speed of light in relative to creatures “outside”.

I’m aware of relativity. That post made little sense. If we are moving near the speed of light relative to another object, we would still be able to see that object.

Also, I seriously doubt life could exist in the explosion of a supernova.

 
Flag Post
A star does not suddenly increase in mass when it turns into a black hole

well yes and no. as soon as it is dense enough to be a black hole, nothing in it’s path can escape it, so therefor it is impossible for it to lose any weight. therefor, the mass of a blackhole can go nowhere but up. and this is only true from that very threshold.

but also, what happens is (possibly because of this effect) that the star implodes. so it’s size decreases potentially to nothing. and smaller planets with an equal amount of mass have a greater gravitational pull, because the direction of the pull is more concentrated.

imagine the mass of a planet as 10 strong guys trying to pull you into their direction. now if those ten guys are spread out over 180° circumverence from you, some of them will be pulling in roughly opposite directions, cancelling eachother out somewhat. but if all of them are in the exact same direction from you, the net pull will be greater.

but there are some other strange things going on with and around black holes that we can’t quite understand. i think it may indeed be that it’s mass increases somehow from the implosion, but i’m not sure what they say about that exactly.

 
Flag Post
but black holes keep growing, and new ones can occur, but i’ve never heard of black holes disappearing (just merging into bigger ones). so whatever effect they have on the universe, this effect will continue to increase indefinetely.

They do keep growing, yes, but they aren’t increasing the amount of matter that is present in the universe. Just because one black hole becomes more massive doesn’t mean it’s going to have much, if any, effect on the expansion.

inevitably, all matter will eventually be sucked into one massive black hole. then what? a new Big Bang?

Not necessarily – if matter, like a neutron star, isn’t inside the gravitational range where it would be sucked into the black hole, then it will never become part of one. As the universe continues to expand, distance between objects becomes greater and greater and the likelihood that a piece of matter will find a black hole becomes less and less.

 
Flag Post

but will that chance ever become absolute nothing?

we are agreeing on two things: that new matter (or matter-energy) is not added to the universe; and that black holes will never stop growing, are we not?

then inevitably the amount of matter that is not inside a black hole will continue to decrease to approach 0.

as black holes an also merge but not split, the inevitable result should be everything coming together in the end, at some point in time, however distant.

only an everlasting space expension fast enough that the farthest matter-carrying edge of space travels away from the center faster than the speed of light could prevent it all becoming one big black hole, but it would still eventually gather in several black holes.

 
Flag Post

Once again, Hawking Radiation. I’m aware that it’s more of a hypothesis than a theory, but still.

issendorf is right, in that just because black holes exist, doesn’t mean they will inevitably pull towards each other and consume one another. This doesn’t require anything special, just that they be sufficiently far away from each other and moving away from each other in a relative sense.

The idea that all matter will eventually be pulled into a black hole is also known as the Big Crunch, and the idea hinges on the universe not expanding quickly enough. That is, we would notice the expansion of the universe slowing down due to gravitational forces. It isn’t; in fact, the expansion of the universe is speeding up (observed with the Doppler effect).

Basically, black holes won’t consume all matter.

well yes and no.

This is wrong, because the statement “it suddenly increases in mass” is wrong. Everything after this doesn’t make sense to me. As far as I’m aware, stars explode because they either experience runaway nuclear fusion, or cease nuclear fusion. In theoretical models, a singularity is treated as infinitely dense but with zero volume.

Also, from a sufficiently far distance (in many cases, merely being outside the sphere is sufficiently far), the differences in density of two objects does not matter; only the differences in mass. If two objects have the same mass, but one is a thousand times larger, you would not be able to tell from the gravitational pull if you were outside both objects.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:
Originally posted by Sleepallnight:

@Ketsy
Things that move near the speed of light experience slower passings of time, imagine things that are smaller than us, or things as microscopic individuals, when supernova happened despite experiencing instant increase in entropy, they’d experience a new universe maybe developed new forms of life.
Imagine we are now experiencing an explosion, but to us it feels like life is happening as it is. We in an explosion, everything in us is actually moving near the speed of light in relative to creatures “outside”.

I’m aware of relativity. That post made little sense. If we are moving near the speed of light relative to another object, we would still be able to see that object.

Also, I seriously doubt life could exist in the explosion of a supernova.

Yeah after some thoughts that previous post of mine seems wrong.
If we see an object using light, and we moved at the speed of light, we shouldn’t be able to see things not in front of us. And such vision would be so tunnel vision it won’t made sense of an object.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Sleepallnight:
Originally posted by Ketsy:
Originally posted by Sleepallnight:

@Ketsy
Things that move near the speed of light experience slower passings of time, imagine things that are smaller than us, or things as microscopic individuals, when supernova happened despite experiencing instant increase in entropy, they’d experience a new universe maybe developed new forms of life.
Imagine we are now experiencing an explosion, but to us it feels like life is happening as it is. We in an explosion, everything in us is actually moving near the speed of light in relative to creatures “outside”.

I’m aware of relativity. That post made little sense. If we are moving near the speed of light relative to another object, we would still be able to see that object.

Also, I seriously doubt life could exist in the explosion of a supernova.

Yeah after some thoughts that previous post of mine seems wrong.
If we see an object using light, and we moved at the speed of light, we shouldn’t be able to see things not in front of us. And such vision would be so tunnel vision it won’t made sense of an object.

It’s important to note that one cannot travel at the speed of light, by general relativity. To do such would require infinite energy.

Essentially, we would always be some fraction under the speed of light, and that means we would be able to observe the universe around us (although it may appear heavily distorted)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:


The idea that all matter will eventually be pulled into a black hole is also known as the Big Crunch, and the idea hinges on the universe not expanding quickly enough. That is, we would notice the expansion of the universe slowing down due to gravitational forces. It isn’t; in fact, the expansion of the universe is speeding up (observed with the Doppler effect).

I was watching the Science Channel (maybe Carl Sagan’s cosmos?) and I think the consensus at the time was that the universe was going to keep expanding and “drift” indefinitely, ending with a whisper rather than a bang.

One of the most fascinating things, I always thought, about black holes is the potential for them to be wormholes. Someone had mentioned the fabric of spacetime and I think this would be a really elegant way to create a shortcut, since the distance from one part of the solar system/galaxy/universe is so damn far otherwise as to be unreachable.

A thought occurred to me; If the universe is expanding, could black holes be serving as some kind of… “space drain” (terrible wording).

But I really think the matter would have to go somewhere. As anomolous as black holes are, they still contain something (a lot, actually) and I think have their own limit as to how much mass they can hold. Don’t they explode and release it at some point? I know at least while they are active that they release X-rays as evidence of their existance.

 
Flag Post
we are agreeing on two things: that new matter (or matter-energy) is not added to the universe; and that black holes will never stop growing, are we not?

Yes we are.

only an everlasting space expension fast enough that the farthest matter-carrying edge of space travels away from the center faster than the speed of light could prevent it all becoming one big black hole, but it would still eventually gather in several black holes.

As far as I know, there is nothing that will prevent the universe from expanding infinitely. I’d agree that there is the chance that everything may eventually wind up in a super black hole, but I think we’re talking about a chance that is so small, it is basically zero (but not quite).

@ Ketsy

The idea that all matter will eventually be pulled into a black hole is also known as the Big Crunch, and the idea hinges on the universe not expanding quickly enough. That is, we would notice the expansion of the universe slowing down due to gravitational forces. It isn’t; in fact, the expansion of the universe is speeding up (observed with the Doppler effect).

Spot on – all the data says that the universe isn’t going to contract on itself (creating another Big Bang when it does), but rather, we are headed towards the BigFreeze.

TN:

Don’t they explode and release it at some point? I know at least while they are active that they release X-rays as evidence of their existance.

I don’t think that has ever been recorded – there are some ridiculously massive black holes, even some at the center of the Milky Way that just continue to consume. I think they release the shorter wavelength radiation when they are gorging on large amounts of gas from nearby stars.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Don’t they explode and release it at some point? I know at least while they are active that they release X-rays as evidence of their existance.

I don’t think that has ever been recorded – there are some ridiculously massive black holes, even some at the center of the Milky Way that just continue to consume. I think they release the shorter wavelength radiation when they are gorging on large amounts of gas from nearby stars.

You’re probably talking about relativistic jets.

 
Flag Post
This doesn’t require anything special, just that they be sufficiently far away from each other and moving away from each other in a relative sense.

The idea that all matter will eventually be pulled into a black hole is also known as the Big Crunch, and the idea hinges on the universe not expanding quickly enough.

given enough time (which assuming time is infinite there’d have to be) it seems unlikely that they would never slow down to nothing and then reverse direction. they’d have to be out of eachother’s reach, which requires expension of the fabric of space itself, rather than just outward movement of matter. this is as of yet unconfirmed.

That is, we would notice the expansion of the universe slowing down due to gravitational forces. It isn’t; in fact, the expansion of the universe is speeding up (observed with the Doppler effect).

which we understand nothing about. we have no idea what causes this acceleration and logically this doesn’t make any sense at all. i’m not quite sure to what degree this acceleration is speculative.

Basically, black holes won’t consume all matter.

screw physics. mathematically this is only possible if black holes either stop gaining mass, or infinitely regress their mass-absorption ability faster than it consumes mass. back to physics, i don’t see that happening. i don’t think there’s any mass out there outside of the reach of a black hole, since all mass seems concentrated around blackholes, circling a drain.

As far as I’m aware, stars explode implode because they either experience runaway nuclear fusion, or cease nuclear fusion.

that deos not satisfy as an explanation for the creation of a black hole. an antedecent is not necessarily neither the original cause nor the mechanism. the point of no return could be either or both of those.

from a sufficiently far distance (in many cases, merely being outside the sphere is sufficiently far), the differences in density of two objects does not matter; only the differences in mass. If two objects have the same mass, but one is a thousand times larger, you would not be able to tell from the gravitational pull if you were outside both objects.

but it has major effect in the short range. in fact, the earth could hypothetically become a mini black hole if it’s mass got compressed to the size of, like, a salt grain or something. density has a significance outside of mass, especially for black holes.

also the size of a star when it implodes is closer to the size of an average solar system than an average star.

but I think we’re talking about a chance that is so small, it is basically zero (but not quite).

i don’t thikn we can speculate what the future has in store for the expension of the universe. it may seem like nothing can slow it down, but there’s also nothing that can speed it up and it still seems to.
and like i said, only never-ending expension of twice the speed of light can prevent it, given enough time.

 
Flag Post

given enough time (which assuming time is infinite there’d have to be) it seems unlikely that they would never slow down to nothing and then reverse direction.

Then look up escape velocity. If it still doesn’t make sense, I’ll try to explain it more in depth.

which we understand nothing about. we have no idea what causes this acceleration and logically this doesn’t make any sense at all.

It’s perfectly possible it doesn’t happen. However, it’s been confirmed by observation, and there does not seem to be major disagreement within the physics world.

screw physics. mathematically this is only possible if black holes either stop gaining mass, or infinitely regress their mass-absorption ability faster than it consumes mass.

Mathematically, it’s possible if they never come within range of being absorbed by the black hole. They don’t need to infinitely regress, just lose mass faster than they gain it. This would obviously take a long time, but time is a long item.

that deos not satisfy as an explanation for the creation of a black hole.

Then research it, rather than trying to substantiate claims based on what you think makes sense.

but it has major effect in the short range. in fact, the earth could hypothetically become a mini black hole if it’s mass got compressed to the size of, like, a salt grain or something. density has a significance outside of mass, especially for black holes.

I’m well aware. That is why I said “outside both objects.” It was a response to what appeared to be a claim that smaller planets have a stronger gravitational field if they have an equal mass, regardless of location.

 
Flag Post
which we understand nothing about

We know a little bit – the expansion is the same expansion that happened during the Big Bang when occurred. Why it’s still happening and what the universe is expanding into (expanding into itself maybe) is completely unknown.

that deos not satisfy as an explanation for the creation of a black hole

Black holes are formed by only the most super massive stars that become so dense in the core that they implode in on themselves. The vast majority of stars just turn into cold, dead, neutron stars or chunks of helium.

 
Flag Post
Then look up escape velocity. If it still doesn’t make sense, I’ll try to explain it more in depth.

i know what escape velocity means. but in order for something to truly “escape” this way from a source of gravity, it has to get far enough away from it that other gravity sources cancel it out. this means it requires other gravity sources in order to not eventually, given enough time, return anyway.

when we’re talking about black holes in relation to the other black holes in the Universe, ignoring the hypothetical expension of the fabric of space itself, they have to be either less far out from the center of the Universe as some other black holes and cross paths with one, or eventually reach the edge of the Universe (defined by matter), thus inevitably returning direction.

It’s perfectly possible it doesn’t happen. However, it’s been confirmed by observation, and there does not seem to be major disagreement within the physics world.

but we don’t have a glass ball, so we don’t know what the future would bring for this expension. it’s also entirely possible that there’s some form of optical effect making it look like this expension is accelerating.

Mathematically, it’s possible if they never come within range of being absorbed by the black hole.

not without black holes doing either of the two situations i mentioned.

They don’t need to infinitely regress, just lose mass faster than they gain it.

impossible. black holes never lose any mass, by definition.

Then research it, rather than trying to substantiate claims based on what you think makes sense.

i’m certain this will either show that we don’t quite understand how this proceeds, or that it proceeds roughly like i discribed.

Black holes are formed by only the most super massive stars that become so dense in the core that they implode in on themselves

right. in other words, the gravitations inward pull becomes so great, an event horizon is reached that causes all the matter to get sucked inwards at an implosive velocity. which is pretty much what i said.

 
Flag Post

i know what escape velocity means. but in order for something to truly “escape” this way from a source of gravity, it has to get far enough away from it that other gravity sources cancel it out. this means it requires other gravity sources in order to not eventually, given enough time, return anyway.

Actually, it doesn’t.

but we don’t have a glass ball, so we don’t know what the future would bring for this expension. it’s also entirely possible that there’s some form of optical effect making it look like this expension is accelerating.

Which is true. However, claiming that things we observe are false requires more reasoning than you’re providing. I feel like you’re stating things should be a certain way, and I’m saying they aren’t that way.

impossible. black holes never lose any mass, by definition.

Once again, Hawking radiation.

i’m certain this will either show that we don’t quite understand how this proceeds, or that it proceeds roughly like i discribed.

To be honest, I find it hard to take someone serious when they basically say “I don’t want to research it, because I think that either others don’t understand it, or that I’m right.”

 
Flag Post
i know what escape velocity means. but in order for something to truly “escape” this way from a source of gravity, it has to get far enough away from it that other gravity sources cancel it out. this means it requires other gravity sources in order to not eventually, given enough time, return anyway.

Cancelling of gravity really doesn’t have much to do with it. For instance, on Earth, you need to 11.2km/s in order to move fast enough to break through the earth’s gravitational force – other gravity sources don’t really matter. The event horizon is where the escape velocity is the speed of light. Inside of it, it would take an impossible speed of faster than light to escape. That’s why, since light can’t escape a black hole, it’s, well, black and we have no idea what happens on the other side of the event horizon.

or eventually reach the edge of the Universe (defined by matter), thus inevitably returning direction.

Not necessarily. We don’t know if there even is an “edge” to the universe. Plus, the universe could potentially expand indefinitely, meaning that a black hole would never hit the edge since the expansion of the universe moves master than any one object in the universe.

i’m certain this will either show that we don’t quite understand how this proceeds, or that it proceeds roughly like i discribed.

I feel like you forgot a third option – that you are wrong?

 
Flag Post

In regards to things are “sucked” into black holes (or do they fall into them?). I was BADLY mistaken when I said “Black Holes (must) serve a greater purpose than total annihilation of any matter that comes to close”… I must apologize to anyone who has posted or is reading this as well as one mister Leonard Susskind. I can’t believe I forgot about his theory.

Stephen Hawkings theories on black holes didn’t sit well with most physicists. It gave answers… just not satisfying ones. Simply, information CAN’T “disappear” (what was once thought to happen should something enter a black hole). One of the most RESOUNDING rules of physics is that anything can be “reassembled” if all its information can be collated, and information can’t be destroyed.

Susskind presented the theory that black holes, instead of completely “destroying” whatever matter passed their event horizon is instead… hmm… Transformed?(pardon my layman’s knowledge), into energy which is then dispersed to the “edge of the universe”. I.E. creating a universal “repository” of all “lost” information.

Again, I am not doing Mr. Susskind’s theory any justice. Above is barely it in a nutshell, but there it is.

 
Flag Post

Cancelling of gravity really doesn’t have much to do with it. For instance, on Earth, you need to 11.2km/s in order to move fast enough to break through the earth’s gravitational force – other gravity sources don’t really matter.

Escape velocity only applies to ballistic trajectories. (So, something that’s given velocity right as the flight starts. Like a bullet from a gun, or something somebody has thrown.) So, if you had a cannon and you wanted to fire something into space with it from earth, the cannonball would have to be travelling 11.2km/s when it leaves the cannon. But something like a rocket doesn’t have to be as fast as that. A rocket could escape earths gravitational pull going at a few km/h, as long as it kept going for long enough.

But besides that, you’re right.

 
Flag Post

well… Black holes are being made constantly, so if you are right, that means that we will eventually be drained….