Destruction Of The Universe?
 

Was just wondering... what if a black hole was surrounded by a mass of negative matter large enough to negate its gravity, and this traveled through another, much larger, black hole? This would mean that the black holes didn't merge, but one would be inside the other. Would this be like dividing by zero? The scariest part, this is allowed by the current laws of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.

Or... I might just watch a bit too much Sci-Fi. :D

Hmmm this, if possible, would be something beyond our comprehension but there are some flaws. Anti matter obeys the Laws of Gravity which would inadvertedly increase the gravitational pull of the black hole instead of negating it, so really this antimatter would just get sucked into the black hole if it hadn't annihilated itself in coming in contact with ordinary matter before it went in. If the black hole didn't have a gravitational pull then it stops being one (nobody knows what happens to a black hole if it loses its gravitational pull, as its never happened before). So this event would be most likely impossible, sorry to deconstruct your theory. :(

But let's say if this was possible, a black hole in a black hole, that would be just mind-boggling! :)

I wonder, do black holes really exist?

They have to, and their effects have been observed, and Einstein did say that it should happen. So far he hasn't been wrong.

The only thing that's not visible with a black hole is the "hole" itself, but the matter such as stars and dust and gas that orbit and get sucked in have been seen by observers and so far nothing else in the Universe has been seen to do the same thing.

If it weren't for black holes, we wouldn't exist and neither would our galaxy, or 90% of all galaxies in the Universe.

When you think about it, Black Holes seem almost science-fiction, only a sci-fi geek could imagine a bottomless pit in space. :)

I ask because I've been referring back to this article for a while ever since I really started questioning the whole idea. I'm not necessarily against it, but it seems like your explanation of "If it weren't for black holes, we wouldn't exist and neither would our galaxy..." just doesn't cut it.

I've never heard about how black holes are the *cause* for the universe like you put it; just as the result of exploding stars... unless you're inferring how exploding stars are the cause for the beginning of the universe; but that's another discussion altogether.

I was under the impression that people knew that "black holes" were just superdense clusters of matter... (aka: the black stars they were referring too...)

Well Im open to new suggestions for theories, we obviously don't know enough about black holes (or black stars hypothetically) to disregard new ideas of what they are, as long as they can prove that these "black stars" can be formed other than imploding stars then I'll look more into it as black holes can form if enough mass is concentrated into a small enough area, if you squeeze the Earth down to the size of a pea you could form a black hole.

Looking at the theory there's one statement that doesn't make sense:

The problem with this is that light can't escape these gravity wells, even for these black stars it still must have enough gravity to behave the way black holes do, and the gravity of black holes prevents light from escaping.

Also, the article says that these black stars lose mass and energy through radiation, thus never becoming a black "hole" (I'll get onto this in a min.), the black star must radiate gargantuan amounts of energy-mass to prevent complete gravity collapse, why isn't this detectable? Even the minute dribbles of radiaton given off from a black hole are detectable. Surely, if these black stars radiate energy then the sky should be lighting up like Christmas to detectors.

Oh I was talking about how supermassive black holes form galaxies, because it is proven that the mass of all the stars don't produce enought gravity to form a galaxy, only the gravity of black holes can and that's why they are at the center of our galaxy and every regular galaxy in the Universe. That's how we got here, because black holes are able to form galaxies which resulted in the Milky Way, and then resulted in the Sun being created and then us.

As I said in the aforementioned paragraph.

Quote from Aihwa: Aihwa is exactly right. :)
I don't think these two theories of black holes and black stars are all that opposing to each other. A "black hole" is the coined term of an "object that is completely gravitationally collapsed". When we think of a black hole, we imagine this large black hole in space that nothing escapes from but a black hole isn't a hole, it's a singularity, a spherical point with dimensions and a limited density.

The black star theory says it's just a crushed star that has so much gravity that it is undetectable, that's exactly what a black hole is. A black hole is simply a star that has collapsed and the gravity of the crushed mass prevents light from escaping. At the core of a black hole is the mass of the star, in a sphere, it hasn't "left the universe" as the article says what happens, it's just unrecoverable, but it's still there. If everything that falls into a black hole disappears, then how come black holes get bigger as more mass falls into the singularity? I think that black holes are taken for its name, black holes aren't holes and they don't behave as holes either.

Black Star theory suggests that event horizons can't exist, that the information that goes into a black hole gets "deleted". Information can never be destroyed, information that falls into a black hole simply becomes part of the singularity, which, as I said, is unreachable.

So really this Black Star Theory is just more of a clarification of the Black Hole Theory, both are theories but none are wrong. That's how I see it anyway. Sorry if this was a boring (and possibly confusing) read. :shy:

I wonder, if supermassive objects deform space, wouldn't that result in a four-dimensional space? Just like a lead ball deforms a two-dimensional rubber sheet into a three-dimensional tunnel.

Sorry for thread hijacking, but I'm just curious :P

We live in four-dimensional space, the fourth dimension being time itself. So a supermassive black hole would create a 5-dimensional space. Hmmm... a fifth dimension could explain the mystery around what's at the end of a black hole, a fifth dimension. Superb thinking Zenit! :) I will look into this further.

Hmm sound like very interesting idea Zenit. So, in fact you are thinking about transforming object to higher dimensional space. Like 1D line become 2D curve, "2D" rubber u mentioned become 3D. Only assumption we have to follow is that there is some more dimensional space "above". So if our space is only some "slice" than black hole will bend/move inside other dimension and we wouldn't never know about it :). Ha, I never thought about that this way.

Neither have I, and I study this kinda stuff religiously! :D

You may be interested in ideas like string theory, where there are multiple dimensions. I think string theory proposes something like 10 dimensions.

At least 7, String Theory says there can be a maximum of 12 or something, but they're entangled in knots and they're so small they're virtually undetectable. The problem with this theory is that it still only exists on paper, not one shred of evidence proves it's possible, yet.