Lasse Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Could the reason for the present Universe be, that space expands with c2 and energy and matter is created and evolving in proportion to it's development? Such a 4D, outward pointing, linear-exponential, infinite drive would be a strong force behind the presence of energy and matter(mass) and could explain the determined nature of the universe. Can anything disappear from spacetime without a trace? Edited April 20, 2018 by Lasse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lasse said: Could the reason for the present Universe be, that space expands with c2 Do you mean c2 (which isn't a speed) or 2c? And why do you think it expands with that speed? And the expansion of space is not described by a speed but by a scaling factor. Which means that the speed of separation between two points is proportional to the distance between them. So there will be points that are far enough apart that they will be receding at 2c. Quote and matter is created in proportion to it's development? There is no evidence that matter is created. 15 minutes ago, Lasse said: Such a 4D, outward pointing, linear-exponential, infinite drive Blah, blah, blah. Colourless green sheep dream furiously. 17 minutes ago, Lasse said: Can anything disappear from spacetime without a trace? The nearest is something falling into a black hole. But that is not entirely without trace. Its mass, electric charge and angular momentum are preserved. Quantum information may also be preserved, but that is an area of research. So, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 Can a black hole explode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Lasse said: Can a black hole explode? No. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Strange said: No. I'm pretty sure that Hawking radiation suggests that if a black hole is small enough it would evaporate extremely quickly and violently. In my book that would be an explosion. So, my answer is yes a black hole COULD explode. Edited April 20, 2018 by JacobsLadder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 You are right. Really, really tiny black holes will explode. (I was thinking of the ones we know exist.) As far as I know, there is no mechanism for creating black holes that size and no evidence they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Strange said: You are right. Really, really tiny black holes will explode. (I was thinking of the ones we know exist.) As far as I know, there is no mechanism for creating black holes that size and no evidence they exist. I think the Chandrasekhar Limit sets the lower limit, doesn't it? About 1.5 solar masses. Edited April 20, 2018 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interested Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Lasse said: Can anything disappear from spacetime without a trace? Virtual particles/quantum fluctuations can disappear without a trace. Spacetime is full of quantum fluctuations. Black holes may be able to evaporate due to hawking radiation. Smaller black holes radiate more xrays than larger black holes increasing there rate of energy loss. What happens to them below the Chandrasekhar limit it is not obvious do they supernovae or something else. Laws of thermodynamics suggest they will be full of radiation. If they did explode the energy/mass absorbed by the black hole would be released/reappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I think the Chandrasekhar Limit sets the lower limit, doesn't it? About 1.5 solar masses. That concerns gravitational collapse It is not the same thing as black hole evaporation. 16 minutes ago, interested said: What happens to them below the Chandrasekhar limit it is not obvious do they supernovae or something else. The Chandrasekhar limit concerns collapsing stars. It is not a factor for existing black holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interested Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said: The Chandrasekhar limit concerns collapsing stars. It is not a factor for existing black holes. Chandrasekhar limit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Chandrasekhar limit (/tʃʌndrəˈʃeɪkər/) is the maximum mass of a stable white dwarf star. The currently accepted value of the Chandrasekhar limit is about 1.4 M☉(2.765×1030 kg).[1][2][3] White dwarfs resist gravitational collapse primarily through electron degeneracy pressure (compare main sequence stars, which resist collapse through thermal pressure). The Chandrasekhar limit is the mass above which electron degeneracy pressure in the star's core is insufficient to balance the star's own gravitational self-attraction. Consequently, a white dwarf with a mass greater than the limit is subject to further gravitational collapse, evolving into a different type of stellar remnant, such as a neutron star or black hole. 38 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I think the Chandrasekhar Limit sets the lower limit, doesn't it? About 1.5 solar masses. What do you make of these scientists claim from last year, https://mashable.com/2017/05/31/x-ray-laser-molecular-black-hole/#gGkllTNunSqA This BH is a bit smaller than than 1.4M☉ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Black holes get smaller because of Hawking radiation and eventually disappear. There has to be countless black holes with under 1.5 solar masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said: Black holes get smaller because of Hawking radiation and eventually disappear. There has to be countless black holes with under 1.5 solar masses. A black hole of that size will absorb more mass than it loses due to Hawking radiation. Even if it were in remote space with no matter to absorb, it would absorb more energy from the CMB than it loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interested Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lasse said: Can a black hole explode? Maybe https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-bounce-could-make-black-holes-explode-1.15573 Edited April 20, 2018 by interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 17 minutes ago, interested said: Chandrasekhar limit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Chandrasekhar limit (/tʃʌndrəˈʃeɪkər/) is the maximum mass of a stable white dwarf star. The currently accepted value of the Chandrasekhar limit is about 1.4 M☉(2.765×1030 kg).[1][2][3] White dwarfs resist gravitational collapse primarily through electron degeneracy pressure (compare main sequence stars, which resist collapse through thermal pressure). The Chandrasekhar limit is the mass above which electron degeneracy pressure in the star's core is insufficient to balance the star's own gravitational self-attraction. Consequently, a white dwarf with a mass greater than the limit is subject to further gravitational collapse, evolving into a different type of stellar remnant, such as a neutron star or black hole. What do you make of these scientists claim from last year, https://mashable.com/2017/05/31/x-ray-laser-molecular-black-hole/#gGkllTNunSqA This BH is a bit smaller than than 1.4M☉ The operative words are "akin to a black hole", it doesn't mean it's composed of extremely curved spacetime... they actually call it a 'void', which presumably means empty.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Strange said: A black hole of that size will absorb more mass than it loses due to Hawking radiation. Even if it were in remote space with no matter to absorb, it would absorb more energy from the CMB than it loses. Correct for larger BHs. But of course BHs over the CMB temperature threshold will get smaller. Edited April 20, 2018 by JacobsLadder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said: But of course BHs over the CMB temperature threshold will get smaller. This threshold is about 100th the Earth mass. And the lifetime at that size would be about 1044 years. For a black hole to evaporate in less than a second, its mass would have to be about 200 tons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Strange said: This threshold is about 100th the Earth mass. And the lifetime at that size would be about 1044 years. For a black hole to evaporate in less than a second, its mass would have to be about 200 tons. Yes, Isn't that what we are discussing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said: Yes, Isn't that what we are discussing? Yes. That is why I said it. Just thought it was useful to quantify things a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Strange said: This threshold is about 100th the Earth mass. And the lifetime at that size would be about 1044 years. For a black hole to evaporate in less than a second, its mass would have to be about 200 tons. Could a black hole decay without recognisable energy release i.e mass=>energy transformation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Just now, Lasse said: Could a black hole decay without recognisable energy release i.e mass=>energy transformation Well, the mass would have to go somewhere. And Hawking radiation is the only (currently) known method for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Strange said: Well, the mass would have to go somewhere. And Hawking radiation is the only (currently) known method for that. Did we ever saw a black hole decay? What is left after the 2 neutron stars collision? Will there be some kind of mass there and matter or there is just empty space-time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, Lasse said: Did we ever saw a black hole decay? No. And unless we find a method of creating micro black holes in the lab, I doubt we ever will. 13 minutes ago, Lasse said: What is left after the 2 neutron stars collision? Will there be some kind of mass there and matter or there is just empty space-time? It will probably have formed a black hole, but there isn't enough data to confirm this. It could have formed a neutron star that is still above the limit of collapsing to a black hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobsLadder Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 23 minutes ago, Lasse said: Did we ever saw a black hole decay? What is left after the 2 neutron stars collision? Will there be some kind of mass there and matter or there is just empty space-time? There is not enough data either way but I tend towards the energy being reabsorbed into the firmament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, JacobsLadder said: Black holes get smaller because of Hawking radiation and eventually disappear. There has to be countless black holes with under 1.5 solar masses. Of the BH's that we know exist, that is those of stellar and supermassive size, it would take the lifetime of the whole universe before they evaporated. In a timeframe of around 100 trillion years, long after all stars have been extinguished, the CMBR will be effectively zero, and BH's will have evaporated. 7 hours ago, Lasse said: Did we ever saw a black hole decay? What is left after the 2 neutron stars collision? Will there be some kind of mass there and matter or there is just empty space-time? While Hawking radiation is logically consistent, as yet we really have no evidence that it does take place. When two Neutron stars collide, depending on trajectory, I would say a BH would be formed. 7 hours ago, JacobsLadder said: There is not enough data either way but I tend towards the energy being reabsorbed into the firmament. The "firmament" is actually a long out dated mythical terminology construct from the book of myths [the bible] and is a terminology only used today by creationists and other religious nuts. Edited April 20, 2018 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 ! Moderator Note A reminder that responses to speculation should be based on mainstream science, not further speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now