Black Holes May Supply Up to Half the Universe's Energy Output

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Green Destiny, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    I saw that the link in the OP was posted over eleven years ago so I looked a little deeper and found this; 'Chandra's First Decade of Discovery Special Feature Supermassive Black-hole Growth Over Cosmic Time: Active galaxy demography, physics, and ecology from Chandra surveys'.
    .
    http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867739/
    .
    .
    My link may not work. If so you can google its' 'Title' (found in the first paragraph of this post) and, if you could, post the proper link. Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    This is very interesting. Me I am partial to the hypothesis of "mini bangs" or that information loss in black holes is fixed due to a mini universe being spawned in new dimensions of space/time.. kind of cool. That implies that our universe was spawned by a black hole, thus implying a kind of infini-verse hypothesis. I think it would be cool to use string theory and experiment with new metrics to see if that is plausible. I like that speculation because possibly it could be fit to a theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Yes.. I've heard of the mini big bang theory. It is basically like a universe ''or dropplet'' coming off our own vacuum. It's like a little universe inside a universe, like those russian dolls.

    So, what is this about the information? Do you believe information is lost to a universe just beginning in its big bang state?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Oh no, whatever goes in comes out somewhere. I think we could find such a thing as a perpendicular arrow of time as an extra dimension. However I just know its not enough to say only that and actually I have written so much about it let me give you a link to another discussion on the topic. I warn you its a brain teaser and ify but then again thats what black holes are eh.

    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27941
     
  8. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Before, I read the link, which I will right now, I will ask, have you heard of Issac Bars?
     
  9. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    The name sounds familiar, however a google shows there are too many to find the one u are talking.
     
  10. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    AGN as in Active Galactic Quasar research?
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/active_galaxies.html

    So they have their own black holes, plus what? The other half of the energy in the universe which is emmited directly out of its inner ends at both cores? How many of these things are there? and how many of them do you think represent the initial big bang? All the heavens are only a reflection of this image? yup, unless you see a better representation for it.
     
  11. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Oh darn, I forgot about this post, and what I was going to say. It had something to do with Father theory, or two-time physics as it is known.
     
  12. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    AGN stands for Active Galactic Nucleus. I'm not certain but I would imagine AGNs include quasars.
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    :shrug:
    I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that distant quasars somehow represent the initial big bang?
    It seems that you may have misunderstood my post. Let me try to rephrase.
    .
    The webpage Green Destiny linked to (in the O.P.) is out of date. That page was put on the internet before Chandra was launched into space. At that time it was claimed that black holes might make up half the universe's total energy output. Sence then Chandra has been making observations of SMBH growth over cosmic time (distance from Earth).
    .
    My link shows some of the scientific conclusions made from Chandra's first decade of observations. These conclusions suggest that SMBHs make up only 5-10% of the universe's total energy output, ... not 50%. The remaining majority comes from nuclear fusion in stars.
     
  13. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    You do realize that you a looking at an artist's rendering?
     
  15. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    Do you have a visual image of what we think they look like that is better than this. Its just a bigger core of gravity than a singular black hole with an accretion disk. The thing is as big as 10,000 times the Swartzchild radius of a black hole. If it isn't a decent representation you can doodle one better. Yes I know it is an artists rendering. Are you saying science is not "artistic" in some models of the universe.

    Perhaps you like the sombrero galaxy better. I particularly find this one quite beautiful. And still she does have a black hole, incredible. But it is no artists rendering.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    source
     
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Well that's pretty meaningless.
     
  17. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Sense this thread is dead, ...
    A better model than what, ... your interpretation of a picture?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Agreed.
    I disagree with the notion that these objects have to be gigantic. Aren't giant things made up of smaller components?
    Until you can show proof of this interpretation I'm going to call it speculation. :handshake:
    Sort of. I could just as easily say; everything is interconnected at a single point known as the BB except, the BB took place at a specific moment in time. From our perspective, the only thing that has changed is time. This applies to everything we are capable of observing.
    .
    How faraway do you think we are physically capable of measuring? Better yet. What's the closest thing (smallest thing) we are physically capable of measuring?
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2010
  18. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    You try to explain that notion to other people

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To the end and back if we play our cards right. Certainly your not suggesting that we put these measurable objects all in the same place. That just sounds like too much fun.
    Now your speaking my language.
     
  19. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that notion.
    What? How can we measure anything that happened before photons began traveling across our expanding universe (i.e., Background Microwave Radiation)? You're either very old or very young. I hope, for you sake, it's the latter. At least then you'll still have time to learn why your statements seem so foolish (no offence intended). There is a limit to how faraway we can observe things.
    I'm not suggesting anything, but if I were I'd say that all these measurable objects can be put into relationship with the BB. You on the other hand have suggested that quasars somehow represent the BB and that it is possible for us to "see" both the BB and ourselves across the vastness of the expanding universe. I disagree no matter how much "fun" that would be.
    What language is that? I simply rephrased your use of speculative buzzwords to show that anyone can say anything. Let me give you some words of advice. Just because you believe something to be true does not mean it is. You need to base your conclusions on something a little more scientific than simply looking at a picture.
     
  20. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    I have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. What is not true here from your standpoint? I thought we were in agreement. If i were to have posted different words would you have thought the same about the pictures?
     
  21. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    choas1956,
    I hope you didn't confuse my cordial demeanor as being in agreement with you. The only thing I agreed with was your statement on how "the heavens" are a reflection of the initial big bang and that everything we can observe is part of that model.
    .
    As far as I'm concerned pictures are speclative, not science, because they are worth a thousand words. I've personally gazed upon the Hubble's Ultra Deep Field for hours on end, flipping between each of the three different light spectrums, but I knew that I was incapable of discerning any conclusions about what I saw without a spectrograph for each galaxy. There are a few things I had noticed in those pictures that later became scientific discoveries but, I hadn't the means to make those conclusions. Single pictures are for the general public to admire. Data-sets are for science. Do you understand?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2010
  22. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    Yes I understand. Did you notice where most of the different colors were in relation to one another on the big picture? The more stable the further appart

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Still light and matter have no problem condensing into a smaller more massive BH structure in the middle. Just think of all the heavens as a frame by frame reference of the process since the begining of time.
     

Share This Page