Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by sculptor, Feb 17, 2023.
I read a claim that black holes may be the source of dark energy?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
My thoughts are: I'd like to read that claim before passing comment.
Exactly. It is important to understand what the claim actually is, and why it is made, before commenting on it.
Interesting. I'm reading the article, not watching the video; I hope the video covers the same thing.
The crux of the theory seems to be "...these black holes actually contain vacuum energy and that they are “coupled” to the expansion of the universe, so that they increase in mass as the universe expands."
I'm not sure I understand the cause/effect nature of this coupling. I get the impression that, as the universe expands, so the BHs gain mass, but - that's got cause/effect reversed - it doesn't explain why the universe is expanding.
I also don't really get how it solves the paradox of the BH singularities:
"It also circumvents the mathematical problems that affect some studies of black holes, because it avoids the need for a singularity at the center."
How? (OK, maybe I'm asking a bit much of an article that's barely a dozen paragraphs long.)
But it'll be interesting to see how this theory develops.
That article suggests that black holes can expand due to what the researchers call "cosmological coupling". The article does not explain what that is, though. Nor does it explain how this coupling creates or causes "dark energy".
To find out more, it looks like we'd need to go to the source: the published scientific papers of these researchers. That is, unless there's some other article that explains the proposed mechanism for this dark energy creation.
On the surface, the idea sound attractive, since it potentially solves more than one outstanding problem in physics.
Like every hypothesis, this one needs testing. The researchers are apparently aware of this.
Give it more time for the criticism to properly flex itself. Everything may be too tentative and threadbare in this initial period. Skeptics like the one below possibly emitting little more than reflexive, grumbling sounds at this point.
EXCERPTS: “What they are proposing makes no sense to me,” says Robert Wald, a theoretical physicist at the University of Chicago who specializes in Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the standard understanding of gravity. Other theorists were more receptive to the radical claim—even if it ends up being wrong.
[...] If such objects were to exist, it would mean that rather than being uniformly spread throughout space, dark energy is actually confined to specific locations: the interiors of black holes. Even bound in these particular knots, dark energy would still exert its space-stretching effect on the universe.
This so-called vacuum energy type of black hole itself isn't actually anything new (Gliner, 1965-PDF), though the relationship with the universe's expansion might be. (Popular expressions like "black hole" and so-forth weren't coined yet in 1965.)
Also, this same camp was dispensing an early taste in 2019: Are black holes made of dark energy?
Croker and Weiner demonstrated that the growth rate of the universe can become sensitive to the averaged contribution of such compact objects. Likewise, the objects themselves can become linked to the growth of the universe, gaining or losing energy depending on the objects' compositions. This result is significant since it reveals unexpected connections between cosmological and compact object physics, which in turn leads to many new observational predictions.- - - - - -
EXCERPTS: [...] The first paper found that these black holes gain mass over billions of years in a way that can't easily be explained by standard galaxy and black hole processes, such as mergers or accretion of gas.
The second paper finds that the growth in mass of these black holes matches predictions for black holes that not only cosmologically couple, but also enclose vacuum energy -- material that results from squeezing matter as much as possible without breaking Einstein's equations, thus avoiding a singularity.
With singularities absent, the paper then shows that the combined vacuum energy of black holes produced in the deaths of the universe's first stars agrees with the measured quantity of dark energy in our universe.
[...] In the second study, the team investigated whether the growth in black holes measured in the first study could be explained by cosmological coupling alone.
"Here's a toy analogy. You can think of a coupled black hole like a rubber band, being stretched along with the universe as it expands," said Croker. "As it stretches, its energy increases. Einstein's E = mc2 tells you that mass and energy are proportional, so the black hole mass increases, too."
How much the mass increases depends on the coupling strength, a variable the researchers call k. "The stiffer the rubber band, the harder it is to stretch, so the more energy when stretched. In a nutshell, that's k," Croker said.
[...] According to the researchers, their studies provide a framework for theoretical physicists and astronomers to further test...
Yes, I have questions like that too.
I have just found the paper, have not 'read' it yet.
Hope I can make sense of it.
Anyone can download a pdf of the paper here on this page:
whoops, just noticed CC's post above.
From that it seems the vacuum energy increases as the black hole expands along with the universe.
If I remember rightly, energy is not 'conserved on the big picture, because vacuum energy is'created' in the new space of expansion.
?? As the black hole expands the vacuum energy in that space (black hole) goes up too, so the BH mass increases??
BIG I think there, because vacuum energy is 'suppose' to cancel itself out?? So why the increase in mass???
That question may only arise with me, because of my complete misunderstanding of things here.
The answer couldn’t be anymore obvious; supermassive wormholes.
Why would you even expect each end of a supermassive wormhole to even stay put relative to each other?
This would allow them to increase in mass without consuming anything. The mass could be transferred between the wormhole connecting them. This would create an outward pressure between each end. The vacuum energy could be nothing more than the two ends pushing away each other from the inside. The more they transfer their mass the more they would push apart.
I take it that this is open for discussion now? Did you watch the videos I linked based on this research finding?
They claimed to have expected a coupling constant of zero. I wouldn’t expect them to say anything about it. It was only found with a 4 sigma. With a 5 sigma result, I would expect it to be closer to pi.
That could mean there is some type of circular relationship going on in the space between supermassive black holes in distant galaxies. It would be one of the greatest discoveries of our time, proving that they always read about too much pseudoscience in all various online formats.
It could basically mean that we are all star dust that was once Hawking Radiation, and Stephen Hawking was the first person to describe the creation of matter in the universe in terms of a quantum fluctuation. You should really give yourself time to process all the information, first.
They mention that there could be such a thing as black hole vacuum energy. This would confirm the original findings of quantum experiments which found that vacuum energy can actually be a source of energy. The widespread belief of vacuum energy having to come from another quantum source is pseudoscience in order for it to obey the law of conservation of energy.
It would mean that vacuum energy actually comes from black holes. It may just be a ripple in spacetime where supermassive wormholes are losing energy. Then it just provides some illusion that the energy is actually coming from nowhere.
It would also mean that black holes emitting Hawking Radiation is actually related to vacuum energy. He was actually correct in his method to try to combine both of these principles together into one theory in order to prove that all of energy in physics is actually conserved.
This is an in depth explanation of the derivation of the mathematical equations used to derive how much vacuum energy exists in the universe. This method has been debated among theoretical physicists long before they discovered that it ended up being far from the expected result.
The most highly suggested problem with this idea is asking how do we know that random particle pair production is even related to dark energy. The paper suggests that there is some link between the two, but that does not prove that it is directly responsible. It may be an indirect byproduct of dark energy. It contradicts the vacuum energy catastrophe.
It makes me wonder; where have they have gone wrong with their maths? It would suggest that;
dQ =/= 0
The amount of vacuum energy in the universe remains constant, even though it is increasing in acceleration. It has also been found that the cosmological constant is not actually constant. The amount of acceleration is actually increasing over time.
How could this possibly be the case? It would mean that black holes are leaking vacuum energy which can result as Hawking Radiation. This would change the total energy of the system. Before they got to this point in the equations, they were only dealing with stars and galaxies. In that case, the fluid equation could be set equal to zero.
By introducing vacuum energy into the equation, the fluid equation actually no longer equals zero. Vacuum energy and Hawking Radiation is then added to the system. The total system outside of black holes is not conserved without resolving how the information paradox is resolved in the equations. The equations seem to imply a closed system which would be more akin to the inside of a black hole, where there exists a closed system.
The gravitational force of a black hole could be so great that it prevents the expansion of space within the black hole to become the expected value of the rate of expansion, which is doubling for every one digit away from the Plank Time. Then a singularity could actually never grow and expand on its own. If it cannot expand and grow on its own, the only points which could potentially cool down to form matter would be on the event horizon where Hawking Radiation is created.
The measured value of vacuum energy is about 5 GeV per cubic meter, as cited by the wiki in reference to Sean Carrol. This is also about the same value as detected by Fermilab in the early 80’s.
Note: This is only vacuum energy and not black hole vacuum energy.
They estimated the mass of what the expected particle should be and found with E=mc^2 that this is about the same value you would expect from an alpha particle or a virtual tau particle.
E = 5 Gev
Relativistic mass m from E = mc^2:
| 8.9×10^-24 grams
| 8.9×10^-27 kg (kilograms)
It was rather ridiculous thinking that a black hole could have anything to do with an alpha particle or a virtual tau particle being created in every cubic meter of space or the lab. Fermilab discovered no other evidence that said particles ever actually existed in the lab. What if it is actually black hole vacuum energy as Hawking seemed to suggest with his theory after these debates?
A black hole would not likely be able to contain any alpha particles. It was suggested that a virtual tau, which was detected at higher energies, would be responsible. This came up when they where attempting to choose a name for the particle, since this could cause confusion. A relativistic theory on quantum physics would end up having two tau’s in the mathematics if the two variables were ever written into one single equation. They chose to no longer work on the problem, and they figured it would just be someone else’s problem if such a theory was ever discovered.
If vacuum energy is actually black hole vacuum energy, then it seems unlikely we would be dealing with low energy alpha particles. It would seem to suggest that virtual tau particles are actually being created outside the black hole. It has since been discovered that supermassive black holes actually exist. This model proposed that the inside of a black hole was made of electron soup.
According to the wiki, tau particles can actually form exotic types of matter. You could end up with an antitau lepton being orbited by an electron. If you had a tau antitau particle pair inside of a supermassive black hole, the antitau could end up being separated from the tau lepton. This would separate it from its particle pair and allow it to travel in some other form, rather than energy. It would prevent them from annihilating each other. The tau lepton decays quickly into a hadron 64.79% of the time.
This work was never followed up on for obvious reasons. One, the tau has too short of a half life to travel the distance from a black hole to an underground laboratory in a mine in the Earth. Two, it was not even known if black holes even exist, let alone knowing what is inside of them.
I once believed that it was simply alpha particles. It would make a lot more sense and be much easier to fit into the general idea that space is mostly filled with helium atoms that come together to form stars. Then this general idea seems to be running into a lot of experimental obstacles the more time goes on.
If the experiment getting a 4 sigma justifies the connection between black holes and vacuum energy, then they would have to have some other mode of transportation to get here from there. Automatically, it makes the theoretical model to appear to be very speculative. I would imagine that some sort of quantum tunneling would be taking place inside of a supermassive wormhole that ejects tau through a higher dimension of spacetime.
If vacuum energy is tau then this paper would suggest what we should expect to find inside of a black hole. It would consist of a core of ditauonium and an atom made of an antitauon and an electron. The ditauonium would be more massive, so that would make up the innermost core. The outer shell would then be a brighter surface of antitauon atoms shinning out tau leptons. The tau leptons could then quantum tunnel into the surrounding space.
Separate names with a comma.