Jump to content
Science Forums

The Strange Interpretations of Black Holes

Recommended Posts

From my previous models that investigated a pre big bang phase as a mesophase crystal, to liquid, consisting of a degenerate all-matter region to the radiation vapor (known in standard model as the dominant radiation phase) from an irreversible thermodynamic Helmholtz phase transition led me to speculate on whether the model could explain what a black hole is, which gave me some curious insights to whether black holes where themselves, are a type of photon condensate. The conclusion did hold some theoretical merit since the free energy of a large condensate is less than what is experimentally known for smaller condensates; for the black hole, this meant the larger they became, the less radiation it gave off. In theory, we still believe, regardless of whether a black hole is a condensate or not, that larger black holes will give off less radiation as they are cooler than their smaller cousins. As the radius of a black hole gets smaller, the hotter it inexorably becomes and so black holes on the microscopic scale are extremely unstable in the sense that they quickly radiate away its energy in the usual thermal Hawking process dictated by itself, the Hawking time for it to radiate completely. For extremely small black holes, quantum rules ultimately take over and in theory, it is calculated through an uncertainty relation between the black holes energy and the Hawking time - it is itself for this reason that only micro black holes are dominated by quantum effects severely when they are very small. For a quick example, there would be a relation like the following for such small systems:

ΔE(Bh) Δt(ev) ~ h/4π

I'm too lazy to plug in the values, but let's say, it would exist for less than a fraction of a second for such reasons. Understand it another way, if the black holes evaporation time is well defined, the energy released is less certain, but if we measure it's energy released, the time it does so, becomes a bit more uncertain as a consequence of this quantum effect. We still don't know all the strange twists and turns that black holes may give us and there is still no true consensus as to what the semi classical equations mean for the quantum black hole in full. We can only guess right now! One thing that does interest me though, is whether the spin of a black holes increases proportional to its size. This is not a new thought or idea, as it's been around for a while, but scientists have wondered whether smaller black holes have a lesser magnitude of spin to their larger brothers and sisters. This was theorised, because it seems from observation, that only the most largest (the supermassive black holes with billions of solar masses) appear to rotate at near the speed of light. Let's say something about the mass of black holes first.

If you were asked, if a small black hole was denser than a larger black hole, does it sound intuitive? Well, you might make yourself a thought experiment first, if larger black holes have had more time to gobble up mass, you might think they would naturally be denser, but we are told, at least in theory that this is not true? Why, you might ask?

Often, we are told that the black hole is mostly "empty", and all the mass is concentrated within a tiny region (clasically a region where the mass appears concentrated to a point) in the center of the black hole much like how Newton derived the attraction of Earth's gravity as though all its mass was concentrated also to a point inside a sphere. the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole is proportional to its mass, from which you can obtain


And so it is said, as a consequence of this, that the heavier a black hole the smaller its density. But, if we apply a thermal wave length and some quantum rules forbidding the creation of singularities, this model may no longer hold, for example, at least in principle, it should be impossible to squeeze any particle into a region smaller than its own wavelength, so while it may appear like it has all its mass concentrated to a single point, the true physical picture may have limitations based on stern quantum rules. The reason why I spoke about thermal wavelengths, was really grounded from the pre big bang model, where the all-matter liquid phase existed at near absolute zero temperatures. The thermal wavelengths where capable of being an object, originating not from a point, but from a highly condensed phase on the nano scales, which I did indeed invent before all the hype in academia about how the universe could have come from a single, "super particle" existing more in space than the standard big bang model likes to teach. From my model, my imagination ran wild about what it would mean for black holes where we talk about thermal wavelengths, the concentration of the particles inside of them and how their temperature correlated with it could all be related. Was it just a curious fact that larger condensates had less free energy and with what we think we know, that large black holes where cooler than their smaller cousins? Or is there just coincidence accidently stumbled upon by modelling them wrong?

The fact remains, that the new age of thinking led to Susskind winning his own war against Hawking, saying information was never lost, and to me at least, this meant that at the literal core of black holes, the laws of quantum mechanics should also pervade and must not disappear. In short, it meant from my models perspective, the black holes as " mostly empty space" was no more true than our universe is mostly empty space, as it is filled itself of quantum fluctuations. There was no such thing as empty space, even though this was a popular belief for quite some time. It meant that the interior of large black holes, could in fact be in principle, just as dense as their smaller cousins, just a greater amount of mass. It would mean larger black holes really are heavier than the small black holes as a consequence. Remember,  though, density does not mean a thing has to fall faster, as in a vacuum, even Newton showed that Galileo was right, all bodies tend to fall at the same rate so long as friction was not present, so be wise not to mistake density and weight as somehow the same thing. It is curious to note, that from a cosmetically viewpoint, black holes after quite some time, tend to condense in greater numbers to the center of their host galaxy over time, but while this has analogy to how denser object sink in a fluid, it's not directly due to the density but a gravitational interaction.

If black holes are not really empty, and they are just as dense as small black holes (it only differs by quantum numbers of the particles beyond its horizon) we may have to abandon the old picture which says smaller black holes are denser in principle to their larger personifications. So, moving along nicely now, I've talked about the black holes as being theoretical condensates obeying quantum rules, how would the spin be effected by the size of a black hole? Again, I'd like to stress that we do not know this is really the case, but it's nice to theorise on the matter because the black holes angular momentum is related to its radius, mass and spin velocity in a very simple equation:

J(BH) = mvr

r - the black hole radius

m - black hole mass

v - spin velocity

From it we would need to say that the angular momentum J(BH) would linearly increase with its mass and radius. It's interesting, because while I attempted in the past to explain dark matter as the origin of a gravitational drag from black holes, we are told very similar physics to that effect when we are given reasons why supermassive black holes must spin near the speed of light. I quote Forbes now:

"The more you compress that mass down, the faster the fabric of space itself gets dragged. "

Forbes link: 

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/01/this-is-why-black-holes-must-spin-at-almost-the-speed-of-light/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16179537117480&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fstartswithabang%2F2019%2F08%2F01%2Fthis-is-why-black-holes-must-spin-at-almost-the-speed-of-light%2F

Compressing mass, may still have an lower limit. Again, all you have to adopt is some simple quantum rules, assuring that the infalling matter cannot be stripped into components that cannot be squeezed into lengths smaller than their own wavelengths. By making the wavelengths thermal, larger condensates naturally are cooler than smaller ones. While I was not the first to assume that black holes are the real physical candidate for dark matter effects, I was one of the first to construct drag equations from fluid dynamics in the language of general relativity. While I do not trust all the various approaches I used, I did find one curious thing, that dark energy was basically the inverse of the drag. The inverse of the drag has a very simple terminology that even a child can understand, it's called a thrust. The thing we call dark energy Tom the viewpoint, is like the opposite of dark matter in this theoretical model. It became a cosmological "impetus" that was driving the expansion of the universe in a mechanical way.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...