interested

Thanks for stating the obvious I was considering and mentioned previously on the black hole thread the problem of time between quantum mechanics and space time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time Space time does not cast any light on quantum entanglement, for that another dimension is required. I will adjust the above question. Can the substance of space be considered to be a fourth dimension connecting all x,y,z,t points in the universe. ? Is the term space/time used to describe XYZ,t dimensions, which only exist because of quantum fluctuations from the substance of space. The substance of space having no dimensions but connects all points in space, like a extra dimension? You are taking the mickey.

Would any one like to discuss this article in terms of their own countries problems. This has been Portugals answer to drugs since the Salazar regime finished. Would it work in America or the rest of the world? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Under general relativity Space is space time and fixed empty dimensions, distorted by gravity. Under Quantum theory Space is supported by quantum fluctuations appearing out of space. The amount of observed space in x,y,z coordinates we see between galaxies is expanding, likely due to random quantum fluctuations of virtual particles or gravitons appearing in space, faster than they are absorbed by mass. Can the substance of space be considered to be a fourth dimension connecting all x,y,z points in the universe. ? Is the term space/time used to describe XYZ dimensions, which only exist because of quantum fluctuations from the substance of space. The substance of space having no dimensions but connects all points in space, like a 4th dimension? The term Quantum fluctuations I am using to mean everything. Starting from Virtual particles to all the matter and energy in the entire universe.

The bouncy universe or loop quantum gravity allows black holes to evolve into big bangs https://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html#nRlv this idea sounds plausible. There is no evidence what is happening inside a black hole and most likely never will be unless one explodes violently releasing energy, in the form of radiation. Initially I am happy to accept an idea if it sounds plausible, for instance the core of a black hole being supported by radiation, to me sounds plausible, a black hole losing energy through Hawking radiation is plausible, a BH teleporting energy out of its core by another dimension or wormhole to other parts of the universe sounds plausible, (I thought teleportation was star trek until Swansont mentioned it on the entanglement thread I started). Parallel universes do not sound plausible, whereas extra dimensions do and for me explain entanglement of particles. From my Mantra All things are quantum fluctuations, space time is quantum fluctuations of different types. Galaxies are all accelerating away from each other due to more quantum fluctuations(space) coming into existence than are absorbed by mass. The apparent curvature of space by mass, could equally be represented by the absorption of quantum fluctuations(space) by mass, which could be the cause of gravity and space time curvature. The problem of time between quantum gravity and space time could just be a different way of looking at the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time The casimir effect suggests gravity is due to quantum fluctuations being reduced between the plates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect . Space is space time and fixed empty dimensions for some, I prefer to think of it at the moment as supported by quantum fluctuations, which possibly are only virtual particles but could equally be mathematically described as gravitons. What would happen to a theoretical graviton inside a black hole? I guess it would be absorbed like a virtual particle. I could always be wrong, but I am still interested and currently think I am barking up the right tree, but may change my mind next week.

So what we got so far inside a black hole:- a singularity, a possible hollow interior with the shell supported by radiation, or wormholes to other worlds or dimensions. Wormholes out of black hole. Possible extra dimensions allowing an escape route from the BH. Heres a thread with info escaping a black hole https://www.wired.com/story/information-escape-wormholes/ Almost everyone believes in unitarity, which means information must escape black holes—but how? In the last five years, some theorists, most notably Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, have argued that black holes are empty shells with no interiors at all—that Ellie Arroway, upon hitting a black hole’s event horizon, would fizzle on a “firewall” and radiate out again. It has been repeatedly stated on this thread "Nothing gets out of a black hole" What is this Nothing that gets out of black holes. Are the people theorizing about it actual scientists or crackpots. How does Nothing get out of a Black hole? (I asked a question earlier on ref the graviton emission or absorption I think I have the answer. Within a black hole if absolutely nothing gets out ie a graviton, virtual particles, or quantum fluctuations, then the cause of gravity must flow into the event horizon in the same way any other quantum fluctuation does, gravity is therefore caused by the absorbtion of quantum fluctuations, possibly gravitons or virtual particles, from space. These quantum fluctuations in space must also drive the expansion of space, ie as detected from ligo a gravitational compression and stretching of space. ) Another question: if quantum fluctuations absorbed by matter are the cause of gravity, could the end product inside a black hole be just quantum fluctuations that either disappear out of a worm hole ie extra dimension reappearing in space somewhere else, causing the expansion of space? Answers of course not, dont know, maybe.

Yes even I know it is not true. I already posted something on various theoretical exotic stars previously on this thread, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star#Boson_stars The boson star is the one that interested me for various reasons, but I am aware of the Plank star also. Something else was on the white hole theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole which may all be completely theoretical and not at all related to BH's. There is also a view that space is not three dimensional and all points in space may be entangled to a certain degree, allowing energy to escape through a fourth dimension in a BH. What is the chances that something in an entangled more than 3 dimensional world with massive amounts of energy could be teleported out of a BH? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation Clearly the whole field of black holes, is a whole lot more interesting than other holes, although white holes might be connected by black holes via worm holes. Or maybe black holes lose whole or part of their energy through entanglement to the whole of space. If one could develop a whole new theory in a hole or holes of multiple types, then a whole theory of holes could be developed and fixed in whole lot of peoples heads in a whole new way like the big bang where wholly nothing can get out of black hole via any hole in space, not even theoretically according to some. On the whole where all matter comes from in the universe is the holy of holys in a whole new wholesome sort of way, and it is wholesome and interesting too

Does the collapse of a black hole have to be a singularity at the plank level. 2 Fermions cant occupy the same space, does all the matter turn into Bosons inside a BH. Is the singularity stationery inside a black hole, how does a boson move at light speed inside a BH if it is in a stationery singularity. Can a black hole collapse into something other than a singularity, a hollow sphere perhaps or other shape.

Shy kids get nowt, if no one else is going to ask this question I will. What do you not buy into ref Hawking radiation. Everything or just a little.

Hawking radiation theoretical maybe but it gets out. Two things occur to me that I find interesting, that were not discussed in either of the links you posted and I think are relevant to black holes, or if they were discussed I missed it. 1) What is the shape of the black hole, is it a round or flattened spheroid? is it a hollow spheroid, donut or tubular? singularities and infinities do not exist. A Black hole must have shape even if you cant see it. 2) In the accretion disc the mechanism for the generation of the charge is not discussed, the disc is hot, and most likely a plasma any matter in it is ionized. Do the charges separate out heavier charges towards the event horizon, lighter charges on the outer rim. Is this what causes the plasma emitted from the BH to appear as plasma streams at the poles, due to the magnetic fields caused by moving charges. A separate thought The actual mechanism that causes gravity is quantum fluctuations, it is not an equation. These quantum fluctuations have not been directly detected as yet and may never be. They are either absorbed by matter, or radiated, strange stated that hot matter was heavier, does this mean that hotter material absorbs more quantum fluctuations or emits more. Is there a limit to absorption or emission of virtual particles gravitons etc. Could the surface area or density of a black hole have a maximum absorption or emission rate. Another thought ligo detected a oscillation in quantum fluctuations in space a expansion and contraction or wave, could we surf a gravitational wave. edit Complicated because a lot of it is just theories, and might be smoke and mirrors. Is a compulsory collapse to the quantum plank level realistic. How many quantum fluctuations can you get into that space. I understand only one fermion can occupy a space at once are you saying all the matter in a black hole becomes bosons ie radiation and therefore can.

I am sticking with the Mantra and will study the link, thanks. I have been comparing black holes to big bangs, and been informed I am wrong in doing so, I suspect I am not completely wrong. But how does something get out of a blackhole?Theoretical Primordial Black holes fall into a category known as MACHOs Massive Compact Haqlo Objects. Some scientists have proposed that dark matter—the unseen stuff that is thought to comprise most of the mass of the universe—may be made of MACHOs in the form of primordial black holes. A detection of primordial black holes would bolster that idea, while a non-detection would cast doubt upon it.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-gravitational-black-holes.html#jCp The MACHO theory is that a primordial Blackhole started with Dark Matter and was the source of the original Big Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object since I am interested in dark matter and the big bang and black holes and entanglement (or more simply Quantum Fluctuations). I would like to know if anyone has an opinion on Machos. Is a Macho a blackhole could the big bang happen from a Macho Black hole.

Mordred gave me the mantra so I am sticking with it, also I am quite interested in quantum gravity, which might give more insight into what goes on inside a black hole and even if it bounces, but hey ho I am still reading.

Thanks again this will take some time to absorb. I was kind of contemplating looking at the following, but you may have covered at above. There is an upper limit to how large supermassive black holes can grow. So-called ultramassive black holes (UMBHs), which are at least ten times the size of supermassive black holes, appear to have a theoretical upper limit of around 50 billion solar masses, as anything above this slows growth down to a crawl (the slowdown tends to start around 10 billion solar masses) and causes the unstable accretion disk surrounding the black hole to coalesce into stars that orbit it. Assuming space is represented as steady state condition. Just to clarify by alternating do you mean 1) compress from steady state, 2) back to steady state, 3) stretch from steady state 4) back to steady state. Or does space remain more stretched in the direction the gravitational wave came from. Could the squashing be thought of as a dark energy increase and the stretching as a gravitational increase? Or from the Mantra all things are quantum fluctuations, a compression of quantum fluctuations in space followed by a stretching of quantum fluctuations in space.

Here is me thinking black holes were defined by mass or Swarzschild radius, Wikipedia. At the moment I dont either but I did read it somewhere yesterday morning. I am going to start noting which web pages I am on so I do not lose the link. Are you sure the event horizon is spinning, space itself is turning with the Black hole spin. I thought gravity was a unidirectional force, and nothing escapes the event horizon except radiation. It is the internal state of the Black hole that is intriguing, and most like a BB in reverse. So when two blackholes collide they dont lose mass or energy, in any form what so ever. What does Ligo detect, an expansion or contraction in space as the gravitational wave goes past. Thank you very much for that link, I think that question can be ticked off.

It was accepted earlier that the concept of infinities, singularities and everything being compressed down to the planck length are examples of mathematical thereoms being stretched beyond reality and do not reflect the real world. The Schwarzchild radius of a spinning BH is 10 times less than a theoretically stationary BH at the poles, anything escaping from a spinning BH is more likely to escape at the poles in the form of gamma rays. Gamma rays are emitted from the poles of BH's A spinning mass contracting in diameter will spin faster, on a sphere it will appear squashed like the earth. How fast can a black hole theoretically spin without flying apart? If the centre of a star collapses it will reduce in diameter, in a normal star what happens if the core collapses. Super novae? What would a super novae contrained by enormous gravity do inside a BH. Infinities are values that can never be reached. Infinite gravity does not exist. Would we see some gamma rays escaping the poles? What is the difference between a big BH and a little BH mentioned before other than temperature of the event horizons, have they both been detected and known to exist or is one theoretical?

ditto how does a spinning black hole produce a charge if nothing can get out, do they have a magnetic field no

On the subject of Dark matter I was just looking for something on bosons and stumbled across this link on exotic stars. All competely theoretical of course, but interesting never the less the boson star is what drew my attention but dark matter is also discussed and some exotic states of matter which partially answer my earlier question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star#Boson_stars

1) What is a nothing, how does it get out of a black hole 2) Radiation has no mass it only has inertia. Can a black hole consist of just radiation, does the gravity inside a black hole not require mass for it to work. Radiation has no mass only energy. 3) I completely agree the universe is really really big and each galaxy appears to have black holes at their centre, and there are lots and lots of black holes some of which appear hot and release radiation from the event horizon. 4) I was told to use the Mantra everything is quantum fluctuations > Space has always been full of quantum fluctuations, the early universe must have been full of them, and Dark energy may be caused by quantum fluctuations, the Casimir effect indicates gravity might be caused by the restriction or absorption of quantum fluctuations. Could Quantum fluctuations in an expanding space at absolute zero could also be the source of dark matter? Could also virtual particles ordinarily short lived falling into a blackhole exist long enough to be compressed with other virtual articles to become a real particle? Perhaps not

It is by the action of going around in circles that may be creating an appearance of Deja Vu but the subject becomes clearer and more polished each time I go around the circle. https://gizmodo.com/what-was-our-universe-like-before-the-big-bang-1791889926 A bit of speculation from some for mild amusement. If there is a theory out there that predicts matter will eventually break down into radiation when subjected to pressure and temperature at some critical density and temperature then a black hole would resemble the early stages of a big bang. Edit Oh and a rotating black hole will have a much smaller radius for radiation to get out of, and as a black rotating collapse it will spin faster and faster with anything flying out of its event horizon go spiraling of into space

How does BB fit with GR hand in glove unless the two things are the same thing. Black holes according to relativity do not explode, BB does. You have stated above that matter is continually crushed down becoming more dense particles. What I was suggesting that seems reasonable to me is that matter entering a black hole may break down into radiation if heated enough, we know two particles cant occupy the same space, whereas bosons can. If all or part of the mass inside a black hole was converted to radiation with just inertia, does it not look like a BB after the plank time with no need for the laws of physics to break down. What I was trying to look at is the similarity between the big bang and what may be happening inside a black hole, ie the Blackhole reversing the Big Bang, by at sufficiently high temperatures converting matter back into radiation. Would a black hole that hypothetically converted it mass into radiation not fulfill the requirements to be a BB. Some body gave me a book to read on explosives some years ago to create strong magnetic fields, and some info on Plasma was included. A lightning Plasma will reach immense temperatures, at the point where the plasma implodes after a lightning discharge. It is the implosion where things really get hot. A Black hole collapsing is going to get hot also, perhaps hot enough to break the matter down to matter and antimatter, and turn into gamma rays as was observed by NASA coming from lightning clouds and possibly also coming from neutron stars or something a bit bigger and hotter internally perhaps. Although the temperature may not be visible on the event horizons of the bigger black holes. The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. What happens if the mass in the sphere is converted to radiation, ie high energy gamma rays, having only inertia and no mass. I was kind of hoping someone could explain why the mass wont just convert back to radiation at high enough pressures and temperatures, and replicate a BB. It makes sense to me any way.

I am pretty sure Black holes are mentioned "Black holes are the starting point of Neves' investigations into a theoretical "Bouncing universe." " They also get rid of the big bang concept. Black holes we know exist, removing a singularity allows them to bounce. Yes I know it is accelerating, I also know that this should reduce the temperature of CBR if the Big bang theory is correct. I think after the plank time BB is based on testable physics, prior to the plank time things get a bit dodgy,and it looks like a reversal of what happens in a black hole. Expansion happens because it is increasing the amount of space at an accelerating space between galaxies due to dark energy. Using the mantra all things are quantum fluctuations, dark energy may be due to an increasing number of quantum fluctuations accelerating the expansion of space. Have you got any idea what Migl was on about whereby, big black holes are cold whereas little ones are hot. Is he just pointing out what is observed at the event horizon, or does he actually believe inside a big black hole is cold.

Continuing my line of thought the Energy of photons is inertia, and not mass, E=mc^2+pv, the photons energy is due to inertia only. The photons energy can be absorbed by other particles, but once there are no particles, to absorb the energy what happens with the inertia, what happens to gravity inside the blackhole. I know the path of photons is bent by gravity, which is caused by the action of mass on space, but what happens when the mass disappears, can photons alone inside a black hole cause gravity. I know and that energy is in the form of light ie radiation. So you believe not all things entering a BH do not gravitate towards a singularity somewhere in the middle and get squeezed. Big BHs do not get hot, but small BHs have high temperatures. Can you direct me to the difference in scales we are talking about here, have both types of BHs in question been detected. It is not really my idea the idea of a bouncy black hole has been around for some time, which I know you are aware off. But here are a couple of links for anyone who is interested. https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicist-explores-possibility-vestiges-universe.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter https://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html#nRlv I strongly suspect the concept of before the Plank time and infinite energy levels (temperatures) are just philosophical concepts, they can never be reached or studied. Also Singularities are mathematically inconveniences and do not exist ie are not a physical fact. Space is constantly expanding between galaxies as pointed out by hubble and is due to Dark energy which is possibly caused by quantum fluctuations in space pushing slowly increasing the amount of space. The Casimir effect is interesting from this point of view because a restriction in the amount of quantum fluctuations pulls the plates together. Increasing quantum fluctuations cause space to expand, restricting the amount of fluctuations causes it to contract, like gravity. Ie Space flows into a BH's pulling them together or at some point space is expanding enough to drive them apart. Is Gravity caused by the absorption and emission of random quantum fluctuations in space and not mathematically pleasing gravitons or equations. Space itself may be flat, and not curved although relativity states it is etc, I posted something on this under dark matter thread not mine but no one commented, I also think someone duplicated it under news, ie no dark matter if space is flat. Thank you for the responses. I guess there is enough above to attract some derision.

I learned the annoying tactic of posting from reading your posts. Anyway the CBR is always the same temperature, ha ha. The temperature inside the black hole will increase as Mordred pointed above. Wordology, I thought it was obvious I was talking about radiation. If the big bang theory is half based on fact then we know it will explode. Will the momentum of the radiation add to the mass of the blackhole ? Will the momentum of the radiation prior to the plank time have mass? in BB Does energy have mass? if so how the did the BB having infinite energy approximately Bang. OH so I might be correct ha ha. Yes we know this from the BB theory, we also know from observation they rotate and have black holes at their centre, and planets contain heavy metals that can only have formed from explosive events like perhaps Black holes colliding as well as extinct stars colliding. Stars are not hot enough on their own to generate anything heavier than iron as we know. I do not recall reading about the black holes colliding, I thought I had but when I googled it again this morning I could not find reference to it. Thanks for that I will look again. Yes I know it takes matter to make matter, but that does not matter. The interesting thing is I might not be a million miles away from the truth. You never commented on the above. Bitchy What problem, I might not be to far from the truth. Confusing scientific theories with with actual facts or observations has gone on for millennia. I am however beginning to think the old testament might be correct, in the beginning there was light or maybe quantum fluctuations Thanks for the heads up on Hawking radiation by the way, you feisty old git. Ah Ah

This might amuse you https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html or not as the case me be.

I see I am excelling myself -20 points for wondering about what is inside a black hole so far. If I was a child in an infant school I may be upset. But I guess it is fun to express your feelings. I have also observed being annoying on the forum seems to get better answers and more -ve points. So I guess I should change my user name to annoying instead of interested. I think everyone who is interested will be aware if you look at the big bang theory at look at what is inside a black hole, there are definite correlations. In a black hole as matter and volume are compressed it is going to get hot. If enough matter is compressed inside a black hole the temperatures will match those prior to the plank time of the big bang see https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/bigbang.html . Matter will become pure energy in the form of radiation due to temperature and pressure inside a blackhole that is big enough. How is this different to a big bang? The mass is consumed converted into energy, gravity collapses damn thing explodes releasing tonnes of energy like a big bang, if the black hole is spinning then the energy will be released in the form of a spiral galaxy. Blackholes as I understand have not been observed colliding as yet, but in theory they could, as did recently with the neutron star collision detected by Ligo that produced evidence that enough energy was released to form gold and other heavy metals. From the MANTRA everything is a quantum fluctuation, what caused the original quantum fluctuation? Is space highly unstable popping out virtual particles and absorbing them continuously? I understand time becomes a bit funny inside a black hole how would the lifetime of virtual particles be affected inside a blackhole? Muon lifetimes are affected by gravity, why not virtual particles. Bose Einstein condensates act as one entangled particle at near absolute zero. Could virtual particles in space do the same thing and form the first stable quantum fluctuations, and then gravity and then black holes and then heat and then big bangs? The answer I know will be Nope but why not? I know you are good at maths, I graduated 20 years ago with an engineering degree and a masters, but like most use little of what I studied in the many roles I have had. When I read what you have written it comes back, (I did not like the Schrodinger equation its a monster). If you can explain why with enough pressure and heat a black hole wont convert its matter to pure energy and explode it would be seriously appreciated.

Commercial research is it always a good thing? https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-sugar-industry-withheld-evidence-sucrose.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter