Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8hfmy wrote

Newest theories have hypothesized a “vacuum energy” which sounds like what you might be talking about in part A: it acts sort of like the opposite of gravity, where the energy of a black hole would push matter away from it, at a certain point.

Part C seems to be coming up on black hole cosmology and unfortunately would be damn-near impossible to prove.

2

WhoStalledMyCar OP t1_ja8ju98 wrote

Yes to vacuum energy.

I'm not suggesting that the interior of a black hole is a universe, or that our universe is the interior of a black hole, rather I'm asking about the plausibility of a black hole, given sufficient growth by vacuum energy (if it even happens), could be the source of another "big bang" within the same constantly expanding fabric of spacetime and that any and all universes exist - causally disconnected - within said fabric?

In other words "singularity" -> produce a "big bang" -> black holes emerge -> black holes begin "charging/expanding/building mass/energy" via interior vacuum energy -> any of these black holes at their "peak" energy/mass state ala "singularity" -> produce a "big bang" -> repeat ad infinitum.

1

Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8rq5u wrote

I don’t think so. With our current understanding of black holes, there seems to be no sort of peak energy one black hole can handle, they just keep growing depending on how much mass it can absorb.

Another thing is hawking radiation. As we understand it, black holes do decay, just very slowly. Because it’s theorized that supermassive black holes will completely decay in a relatively similar amount of time as a smaller black hole, you can hypothesize that the more mass leads to more hawking radiation EDIT: checked and the smaller a black hole, the quicker it does decay.

2

WhoStalledMyCar OP t1_ja8t9s8 wrote

Hmmm, true.

Does our understanding of Hawking radiation bake in the possibility of a singularity-free black hole (subject to interior vacuum energy) or the assumption there is a singularity (no interior vacuum energy)?

Does an expanding event horizon contradict the idea of a singularity? ie how does a point of infinite density permit a variable horizon if new mass doesn’t alter the density?

1

Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8wizu wrote

A singularity is quite literally the name of the impossible: it’s the point within a black hole that quantum physics breaks down. So you’re correct in that event horizons contradict them. EVERYTHING contradicts them, yet there they are.

And so yes, when Hawking was theorizing black hole decay, he was specifically trying to figure out what a singularity was. He collaborated on different theories just trying to understand singularities, whether black holes had them or not, and how they might be formed. They basically confirmed that, “yep, some spooky shit happens in there we don’t have the tools to understand yet.”

2

space-ModTeam t1_ja8umzh wrote

Hello u/WhoStalledMyCar, your submission "Recently Correlated Black Hole Mass and Dark Energy Questions" has been removed from r/space because:

  • Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

1