Author Topic: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?  (Read 29687 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #50 on: 14-01-2014, 15:58:47 »
Tačno. U jednom trenutku, pored toga što svet mora da bude argumentovan, isplivava i kako se to odražava na populaciju koja u tim uslovima živi. Mada bismo mogli jeretički da tvrdimo da uslove u pomerenom svetu i vremenu autor postavlja da bi ispisao svoju priču. Znači da nas već nekoliko decenija autori ne impresioniraju pomeranjem sveta ili vremena u kojima se priča događa, već pričom koja se u tim uslovima odvija. Neko bi sad zaključio da više nije SF klasika, što i nije, već da je to fentezi u sredini koja je već jednom iscrtana. Smatram da se tu upeljavamo u klasifikacije umesto da jednostavno objasnimo da je Suvinova definicija novuma možda zasnovana na hitro odabranoj odrednici. Pojam novuma svakako ima svoju težinu, ali pomislimo da li je savršena priča, zasnovana na već iskorišćenom novumu, samo fentezi? Da li je Papinijeva Istorija o Hristu samo apokrif ili je izvrsna literatura? Imam osećaj da je pojam novuma pomalo prevaziđen i da se zbog gotovo religioznog sledbeništva utapamo u suvišnim klasifikacijama.


Prelazak na aktuelne klasifikacije može da sačeka dok se proguta ovo do sada.


Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #51 on: 14-01-2014, 16:09:31 »
Pa, ja sad ne smem da se usudim da raspravljam o novumu u savremenoj fantastici (naučnoj i inoj) jer je moj uvid u moderni fantastički literarni korpus jednak nuli. Ali čisto instinktivno ću se složiti da je, ako pričamo o literaturi koja bi trebalo da bude smatrana dobrom, primarno ne to kako opisati drugačiji svet/ univerzum/ multiverzum već kako se ta drugačijost odražava na, jelte, hjumen kondišn. I sam Asimov je u predgovoru za Nightfall eksplicitno insistirao da iako stanovnici planete koju opisuje možda nisu "stvarno" antropomorfni, za potrebe usredsređivanja na interesantne sociološke posledice njegove naučnofantastične premise (svet sa više sunaca u kome (skoro) nikada ne pada noć, a noć ipak dolazi) rešio je da se ne bakće sa opisivanjem njihovih pipaka ili bizarnih rituala parenja, već da je dovoljno da čitalac zamišlja da su oni dovoljno uporedivi sa nama, kako bi ispratio priču na pravi način.

Opet, s druge strane - i neka mi bude oprošteno što navodim samo primere iz duboke prošlosti - sam Asimov u romanu Gods themselves ima element koji je, da kažem, sociološki interesantan u smislu toga kako mase percipiraju nauku kao utilitarnu disciplinu koju zapravo ne razumeju i zbog toga često naučnike raspinju na križ itd., ali je sa druge strane imao i element opisivanja paralelnog univerzuma koji ima društvo (i biologiju, i fiziku) neuporedivo sa našim i, ako mogu da kažem, kontrast tog društva sa našim nije neophodan da bi se ispričala ova druga strana priče u romanu (ova u našem univerzumu, na našoj zemlji) ali ga obogaćuje.

Biki

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.125
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #52 on: 14-01-2014, 16:18:46 »

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #53 on: 14-01-2014, 16:21:29 »
Shvatam da te napinjem, pa ću da odustanem. Da ne pominjem trolovanje sa strane.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #54 on: 14-01-2014, 16:33:05 »
Ma, napinjem se sam, mislim, najnovije delo naučne fantastike koje sam pročitao verovatno je staro dve decenije... Izvan tokova sam.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #55 on: 26-01-2014, 10:07:22 »
Stiven Hoking elegantno rešava probleme koje naučnici već decenijama imaju u vezisa horizontom događaja crne rupe a gde se Ajnštajnova teorija relativnosti i kvantna teorija sudaraju uz tresak. Hoking šeretski veli: ne postoje crne rupe.
 
 Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'
 
Quote
Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.
 
 
Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
 
In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.
                                                           
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”
                                                           
Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation and weather forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review. The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013 (watch video of the talk).
                                                            Fire fighting                                                           
Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').
                                                           
In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in a letter he wrote to Einstein in late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.
 
 But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be transformed into a highly energetic region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.
This was alarming because, although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place.
   Beyond the horizon                                                            Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.
In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.
Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.
“The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”
Although Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well cause the same problems as does an event horizon.
Unlike the event horizon, the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain size, at which the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good shape).
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
“It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice it is too difficult to do with much accuracy.
Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”
Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that this latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However, he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” he says. "But the fact that we’re still discussing such questions 40 years after Hawking’s first papers on black holes and information is testament to their enormous significance."
   Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14583      References 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #56 on: 03-02-2014, 11:10:39 »
I reakcija na Hokinga


Yes, Virginia, Black Holes Exist!



Quote
My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the Universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” -Stephen Hawking
Here in our little corner of the Universe, the Earth is a pretty intense source of gravity for us. If we want to escape its gravitational pull, we’d need to accelerate ourselves up past the escape velocity, or the speed necessary to climb out of the gravitational potential well that Earth’s mass creates. We can (and have) accomplished this, in fact, but it would take a speed of around 11.2 km/s (or 0.004% the speed of light) to make it so.






But that’s not so fast, after all, not compared to a great many things in this Universe. The reason that we don’t need higher speeds to escape from our planet is that despite having a decent amount of mass — some 6 × 10^24 kg, or some 10^49 heavy atoms — our Earth is spread out over a relatively large volume of space.
But if the laws of physics were somewhat different, we might be able to compress the mass of our Earth down into a much smaller region of space. And if we could, it would take greater and greater speeds to escape from it. At some point, when all the mass of the Earth was compressed into a sphere a little smaller than a centimeter in radius, you’d suddenly discover that nothing in this Universe — not even light — could escape from it.
You’d have turned the Earth into a black hole.




Because the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal speed limit, some regions of space can achieve enough mass compressed into a small enough volume that nothing can escape from it. For a long time, these were purely theoretical objects, as it was assumed that getting such huge amounts of mass into such a tiny volume would be impossible. But then we started discovering things that were… interesting.
Regions of space with incredible radio and X-ray emissions, but no visible light. Regions where stars were being ripped apart and their matter accelerated, but no signs of ultramassive stars. And finally, a place near the very center of our galaxy where stars were orbiting a single point that must have a mass of around 4 million Suns, but from which no light of any type was being emitted.
This must be a black hole! Gravitationally, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity tells us that black holes must distort space, with interesting optical effects that can will show up by looking at the background matter.


But you might wonder, thinking about objects like this, whether they’re really, truly, completely black, in the sense that nothing can ever escape from them. It’s a legitimate question, and one that didn’t really go answered for a very long time. You see, black holes — as described by Einstein’s theory of gravity — were classical objects, or objects described by a continuous spacetime with mass, charge, and angular momentum in it. But we know that the matter and energy in our reality is not necessarily continuous in nature, but rather quantum. And there was no good way to reconcile the fundamentally quantum nature of things with a classical theory like General Relativity.



Instead, the Universe itself must be inherently quantum in nature, and yet we do not have a quantum theory of spacetime. In the absence of a quantum theory of gravity, there was only one option if you wanted to know what was happening around a black hole: you’d have to compute the predictions of our quantum Universe — and that’s the full-on quantum field theory — in the curved spacetime as predicted by General Relativity.



It wasn’t going to be easy. And I know, because I’ve done the calculation myself, but I wasn’t the first to do so. That honor goes to Stephen Hawking, who — in the mid-1970s — calculated what would happen when you had a fundamentally quantum Universe existing in curved spacetime, and that the curvature of space was due to the presence of a black hole.
You’d have quantum fluctuations, or pairs of particles-and-antiparticles popping in-and-out of existence, while simultaneously having this event horizon nearby, where things could fall in, but nothing could ever get out.


What would sometimes happen, however, is that if you had a fluctuation just outside the event horizon, one of the particles (or antiparticles) would sometimes escape from the black hole, while the other one fell in! Because of the conservation of energy, the black hole had to lose mass, while the escaping radiation’s spectrum (and you need quantum field theory to get the spectrum correct) would be a blackbody, and determined by the mass of (and hence curvature near) the black hole! All the other properties — how long the black hole would exist for, the timescales on which it would evaporate, the rate of energy loss — were determined by this phenomenon, which is justly known as Hawking radiation.


In other words, black holes aren’t completely black!




Because we don’t yet have a complete, comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, we have to do the best we can with the tools we have: General Relativity as the descriptor of space and time, Quantum Field Theory as the laws governing matter and energy. As you (theoretically) move in towards a black hole, you’ll typically pass an accretion disk, you’ll find that there’s an Innermost Stable Circular Orbit, and then interior to that, there shouldn’t be anything, as the black hole gobbles that up and takes in inside its event horizon in short order. And once you go inside — with the exception of Hawking radiation — nothing can ever leave.
Unless, of course, as a now-famous paper from two years ago contended, you get incinerated by a firewall of radiation as you cross the event horizon.




What that paper showed is that all three of the following cannot be simultaneously true:
  • Hawking radiation is in a pure state.
  • The information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon.
  • The infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon.
This is an interesting paradox, because we had previously thought that Hawking radiation avoids information loss, the black hole’s event horizon is a real entity from which nothing can escape, and there would be no firewall (i.e., “nothing unusual”) when you cross the event horizon. Yet, could one of these three things be wrong? And if so, which one?
It’s often true that noticing things like this is how physics moves forwards. But it’s also true that the resolution to this paradox — or any paradox in science — isn’t dependent on what a titanic, famous, authoritative figure in the field says it is. It’s dependent on the scientific merits themselves.




But three physicists that you’ve probably never heard of — Samuel L. Braunstein, Stefano Pirandola, and Karol Życzkowski — came up with an interesting find last year! You see, Hawking radiation comes from pairs of entangled quantum particles, one of which “escapes” out into the Universe and the other one of which falls into the black hole. If you break the entanglement, by say, measuring the properties of the one that didn’t fall in, a barrier of energetic particles would descend around the event horizon of the black hole; that’s where the alleged firewall comes from. You have a particle that went “in” and one that went “out,” and they’re entangled with one another: hence the paradox.
The fun thing that they found, here, is that the greater the entanglement across the event horizon of the black hole, the later the firewall curtain falls. More entanglement = more time. And in our Universe — as their paper shows — entanglement across all black hole event horizons is maximized, which means that the time it takes the firewall curtain-to-fall is… infinite. So that was a clue; it didn’t answer everything, but it told us that the problem with the paradox probably isn’t that item #3 is wrong.
But then this happened.




In short, this proposal suggests throwing out #2, or the notion of a classical event horizon. Well, maybe that’s the case, but it’s far from clear that this is even a self-consistent resolution, much less the correct one. I do have to give credit for the astonishingly successful PR move to claim, “There are no black holes,” but the quantum nature of our Universe in no way invalidates our notion of a classical event horizon in any way other than the existence of Hawking radiation invalidates it.
On the other hand, if it has been successfully shown that #3 isn’t the solution, maybe it’s worth looking into #1? That is, we normally think of avoiding information loss (another way of saying that Unitarity is maintained) as being synonymous with giving rise to a pure state of radiation. But what if we could avoid that information loss without the Hawking radiation being in a so-called pure state?
There have been two very interesting papers on that front that — along with the Braunstein, Pirandola and Zyczkowski paper I linked to above — represent (to me) the three biggest developments that have come about since the statement of this paradox. And none of them have names like Hawking or Susskind attached to them.


Imagine you have two pairs of particles with the same momenta, and for both pairs, one particle falls in through the event horizon while the other escapes out. If the two that fall in (and, because they do, you never get to see their information) are each entangled with the ones that escape out, you lose information, as you no longer have that Unitarity property.
But Verlinde and Verlinde showed that you can do a mathematical (and also Unitary) swap so long as the two pairs have the same momenta as one another. Instead of having an in-out pair and another in-out pair, you can treat them as though they were an in-in pair and an out-out pair, effectively disentangling* them, meaning that there’s no longer any entanglement across the horizon, and hence no possibility of a firewall. That was progress, but it didn’t demonstrate exactly where the firewall paradox broke down.




Until, quite recently, Sabine Hossenfelder found quite generally that the information preserving transformations you can do also have some generic and incredibly interesting properties:
  • The swap to disentangle the particles — so that there’s no information crossing the event horizon — can be local, meaning it can happen between two points that are causally connected at all times.
  • This local interaction is restricted to occurring in a certain location right outside the event horizon; you do not get a choice!
  • And finally (and most importantly), she finds that there are no entanglements between radiation states emitted at significantly different times, something that you need if you’re going to be a “pure state.”
And so what these three papers, in tandem, have done, is demonstrate that there is no firewall and that the resolution to the firewall paradox is that the first assumption, that Hawking radiation is in a pure state, is the one that’s flawed.




You won’t read about this in the popular write-ups because it doesn’t have a catchy headline, it’s complex, and it’s not work by someone that’s already very famous for other work. But it’s right. Hawking radiation is not in a pure state, and without that pure state, there’s no firewall, and no paradox.
There is still an incredible amount to learn and understand about black holes, event horizons, and the behavior of quantum systems in strongly curved spacetime, to be sure, and there’s lots of very interesting research ahead. These findings arguably raise more questions than they answer, although at least we know that black holes won’t fry you when you fall in; it will still be death by spaghettification, not by incineration!




And that’s the actual end of the Black Hole Firewall Paradox!

* - A tremendous thanks to Sabine Hossenfelder, author of this paper, for explaining many of her thoughts and many of the nuances of this topic to me. You can read her admonition of the outrageous Hawking claims here.





Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #57 on: 08-02-2014, 13:10:08 »
Izgleda da svakih nedelju dana or sou imamo nove uzbudljive priče o crnim rupama. Upoznajmo Plankove zvezde, novi tip zvezda koje nastaju iz crnih rupa. Strogo teoretski za sada, naravno:
 
 New Type of Star Emerges From Inside Black Holes
 
Quote
Born inside black holes, “Planck stars” could explain one of astrophysics’ biggest mysteries and may already have been observed by orbiting gamma ray telescopes, say cosmologists
 Black holes have fascinated scientists and the public alike for decades. There is special appeal in the idea that the universe contains regions of space so dense that light itself cannot escape and so extreme that the laws of physics no longer apply. What secrets can these extraordinary objects hide?
Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of Carlo Rovelli at the University of Toulon in France, and Francesca Vidotto at Radboud University in the Netherlands. These guys say that inside every black hole is the ghostly, quantum remains of the star from which it formed. And that these stars can later emerge as the black hole evaporates.
Rovelli and Vidotto call these objects “Planck stars” and say they could solve one of the most important questions in astrophysics. What’s more, evidence for the existence of Planck stars may be readily available, simply by looking to the heavens.
Black holes arise naturally from Einstein’s theory of general relativity which predicts that gravity influences the trajectory of photons moving through space. Indeed, when gravity is strong enough, light shouldn’t be able to escape at all. That region is then a black hole.
Astrophysicists have long believed that black holes form when stars a little bigger than the Sun run out of fuel. No longer supported by thermal energy, the star collapses under its own weight to form a black hole. Since there is no known force that can stop this collapse, astrophysicists have always assumed that it eventually forms a singularity, a region of space that is infinitely dense.
But this has never been entirely satisfactory. The laws of physics break down in a region of infinite density, leaving physicists scratching their heads over what must be going on inside a black hole.
Even worse, many physicists believe black holes slowly evaporate and disappear. That raises problems because the information that describes an object must fully determine its future and be fully derivable from its past, at least in principle. But if black holes disappear, what happens to this information?
Nobody knows, a problem known as the “information paradox” and one of the hottest mysteries in astrophysics.
Now Rovelli and Vidotto have the answer. They begin by revisiting some ideas about what might happen should the universe end in a big crunch, the opposite of a big bang. Their key insight is that quantum gravitational effects prevent the universe from collapsing to infinite density. Instead, the universe ”bounces” when the energy density of matter reaches the Planck scale, the smallest possible size in physics.
That’s hugely significant. “The bounce does not happen when the universe is of planckian size, as was previously expected; it happens when the matter energy density reaches the Planck density,” they say. In other words, quantum gravity could become relevant when the volume of the universe is some 75 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck volume.
Rovelli and Vidotto say the same reasoning can be applied to a black hole. Instead of forming a singularity, the collapse of a star is eventually stopped by the same quantum pressure, a force that is similar to the one that prevents an electron falling into the nucleus of an atom. “We call a star in this phase a “Planck star”,” they say.
Planck stars would be small— stellar-mass black hole would form a Planck star about 10^-10 centimetres in diameter. But that’s still some 30 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length.
An interesting question is whether these Planck stars would be stable throughout the life of the black hole that surrounds them. Rovelli and Vidotto have a fascinating answer. They say that the lifetime of a Planck star is extremely short, about the length of time it takes for light to travel across it.
But to an outside observer, Planck stars would appear to exist much longer. That’s because time slows down near high-density masses. For such an observer , a Planck star would last just as long as its parent black hole.
It then becomes possible for the black hole to interact with the Planck star it contains. Rovelli and Vidotto point out that as the black hole evaporates and shrinks, its boundary will eventually meet that of the Planck star as it expands after the bounce. “At this point there is no horizon any more and all information trapped inside can escape,” they say.
That immediately solves the information paradox. The information isn’t lost or trapped inside an unimaginably small region of space but eventually re-emitted into the universe.
There’s yet another exciting consequence of these ideas. Rovelli and Vidotto say this release of information would generate radiation with a wavelength of about 10^-14 cm. In other words, gamma rays.
The universe is filled with a foggy background of gamma rays that astrophysicists have already observed in considerable detail with orbiting telescopes. Could it be that they have already detected the signature of Planck stars releasing their information into the cosmos?
There will certainly be no shortage of astrophysicists willing to comb through the data to find out. Worth watching in the near future.
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 : Planck Stars

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #58 on: 08-02-2014, 13:55:38 »
Daj nešto seksi. I to su crne rupe.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #59 on: 08-02-2014, 14:54:49 »
To ćemo na onom topiku sa fotografijama članova Sagite.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #60 on: 14-02-2014, 10:48:20 »
Do sada najstarija zvezda u univerzumu otkrivena:


ANU astronomers discover oldest star



Quote

A team led by astronomers at The Australian National University has discovered the oldest known star in the Universe, which formed shortly after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
The discovery has allowed astronomers for the first time to study the chemistry of the first stars, giving scientists a clearer idea of what the Universe was like in its infancy.
“This is the first time that we’ve been able to unambiguously say that we’ve found the chemical fingerprint of a first star,” said lead researcher, Dr Stefan Keller of the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
“This is one of the first steps in understanding what those first stars were like. What this star has enabled us to do is record the fingerprint of those first stars.”
The star was discovered using the ANU SkyMapper telescope at the Siding Spring Observatory, which is searching for ancient stars as it conducts a five-year project to produce the first digital map the southern sky.
The ancient star is around 6,000 light years from Earth, which Dr Keller says is relatively close in astronomical terms. It is one of the 60 million stars photographed by SkyMapper in its first year.
“The stars we are finding number one in a million,” says team member Professor Mike Bessell, who worked with Keller on the research.
“Finding such needles in a haystack is possible thanks to the ANU SkyMapper telescope that is unique in its ability to find stars with low iron from their colour.”
Dr Keller and Professor Bessell confirmed the discovery using the Magellan telescope in Chile.
The composition of the newly discovered star shows it formed in the wake of a primordial star, which had a mass 60 times that of our Sun.
“To make a star like our Sun, you take the basic ingredients of hydrogen and helium from the Big Bang and add an enormous amount of iron – the equivalent of about 1,000 times the Earth’s mass,” Dr Keller says.
“To make this ancient star, you need no more than an Australia-sized asteroid of iron and lots of carbon. It’s a very different recipe that tells us a lot about the nature of the first stars and how they died.”
Dr Keller says it was previously thought that primordial stars died in extremely violent explosions which polluted huge volumes of space with iron. But the ancient star shows signs of pollution with lighter elements such as carbon and magnesium, and no sign of pollution with iron.
“This indicates the primordial star’s supernova explosion was of surprisingly low energy. Although sufficient to disintegrate the primordial star, almost all of the heavy elements such as iron, were consumed by a black hole that formed at the heart of the explosion,” he says.
The result may resolve a long-standing discrepancy between observations and predictions of the Big Bang.
The discovery was published in the latest edition of the journal Nature.



Naravno, moje poznavanje astronomije je ništavno pa sam ja duplo fasciniran da zvezda stara više od 13 milijardi godina (plus minus 6000 koliko treba da svetlo stigne do nas) i dalje postoji u formi zvezde, tj. da nije postala beli patuljak/ neutronska zvezda/ crna rupa ili koji bi već za njenu veličinu odgovarajući post-zvezdaški status bio. Zaključujem da je ovo jedna masivno-masivna zvezda sa MNOGO vodoničkog goriva, mada tekst zapravo govori prevashodno o gvožđu i ugljeniku.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.203
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #61 on: 14-02-2014, 10:57:03 »
Nisu baš snimci crnih rupa, ali je zanimljivo da je autor ovih fotografija profesionalni golfer koji je ove godine daleko najuspešniji - već je dobio par najjačih svetskih turnira...


http://jwalk.smugmug.com/
Mica

Dzorig FSB

  • 2
  • Posts: 92
    • Agarta, Večna vatra
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #62 on: 18-02-2014, 15:29:50 »
Quote
It could be time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye. Cosmologists have speculated that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole — a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.

Nije za mene to bogznakakva novost. Davno sam čitao ono od Hokinga crne rupe i bebe vaseljene. Ili što moj buraz spekuliše o postojanju belih rupa u svom romanu...
Sa druge strane, gledao sam jednu pesimističku emisiju o sveopštem kraju kroz rasplinjavanje kosmosa, kad i crne rupe "ispare". Tamo je raspad crne rupe dat entropijski, nimalo kreativno kao "bljuvanje materije" ili nešto slično. Možda bi ga bolje opisao bljesak gama-zraka (fotona) koji će vremenom ići u crveni pomak, etc...
Međutim, iz mog ugla gledanja, zašto ne bi crna rupa rekonstruisala postojeće stanje, jer informacije su u njoj zadržane - tačnije na njoj, ako ćemo po hologramskoj teoriji.
Po hologramskoj teoriji možda nije bilo big banga, nego smo mi hologram nečega što je na udaljenoj površini (dve dimenzije) crne rupe.
Sa druge strane ne mislim da je "večna haotična inflacija" rekla sve svoje, a nju gotivim ne samo zbog toga što je "devedesetih" bilo sve kul  xrofl

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.592
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #64 on: 19-03-2014, 10:56:47 »
Big Bang's Smoking Gun Found



Quote

For the first time, scientists have found direct evidence of the expansion of the universe, a previously theoretical event that took place a fraction of a second after the Big Bang explosion nearly 14 billion years ago.
        The clue is encoded in the primordial cosmic microwave background radiation that continues to spread through space to this day.
Scientists found and measured a key polarization, or orientation, of the microwaves caused by gravitational waves, which are miniature ripples in the fabric of space.


Gravitational waves, proposed by Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity nearly 100 years ago but never before proven, are believed to have originated in the Big Bang explosion and then been amplified by the universe’s inflation.
“This detection is cosmology’s missing link,” physicist Marc Kamionkowski, at Johns Hopkins University, told reporters during a webcast press conference on Monday.
“It’s something that we thought should be there, but we weren’t really sure. It has been eagerly sought now for close to two decades,” he said.
Because gravitational waves squeeze space as they travel, they imprint a specific pattern in the cosmic microwave background. Like light waves, gravitational waves have “handedness” that correlates to left- and right-skewed polarizations.
ANALYSIS: Big Bang, Inflation, Gravitational Waves: What It Means
Using a special telescope located at the South Pole, scientists not only detected gravitational waves in the universe’s fossil radiation; they also found that the telltale polarization signals are much stronger than expected.
“This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar,” team co-leader Clem Pryke, with the University of Minnesota, said in a press release.
In addition to providing the first direct evidence of the universe’s inflation, the measurements can be used to date the process and determine how much energy it took.
“This is not something that’s just a home run, but a grand slam. It’s the smoking gun for inflation. It hints at unification of the fundamental forces at energies 10 trillions of times higher than those accessible at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN,” Kamionkowski said.


Computer models indicate that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in .0000000000000000000000000000000001 (10 to the minus-34) seconds after the Big Bang explosion 13.8 billion years ago.
The telescope used to detect the gravitational waves is called Bicep, short for Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization.
“These results are as extraordinary as they get, and they will require the most extraordinary scrutiny,” Kamionkowski said.
“If these results hold up … then we’ve learned only that inflation has sent us a telegram, encoded on gravitational waves and transcribed on the cosmic microwave background sky. It will be essential in the years to come to follow through with more detailed and precise measurements to infer fully what this telegram is telling us,” he added.

Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #65 on: 24-03-2014, 15:36:57 »
Занимљиво, брзина којом се Свемир раширио много пута превазилази брзину свјетлости. Али пошто свјетлости није било у том тренутку а и касније онда је ово логично.
Моја колекција дискова
"Coraggio contro acciaio"
"Тако је чича Милоје заменио свога Стојана."

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.592
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #66 on: 26-03-2014, 00:30:22 »
Has The Hole in Stephen Hawking’s Black Hole Theory Been Plugged?

[/size]
[/size]
Quote
[/size]Earlier this year,[/size] [/size][color=rgb(0, 51, 153) !important]Stephen Hawking revised his theory of black holes[/color][/font][/size] [/size]to state that the “event horizon” which is a point of no return for everything—including light—cannot exist because it goes against everything that is known about information preservation in quantum physics. However, there were still some unresolved issues with Hawking’s theory; issues which Chris Adami from Michigan State University claims to have resolved. The results of this study have been published in an open access format in the journal[/size] [/size][/color][color=rgb(0, 51, 153) !important]Classical and Quantum Gravity[/color][/size].[/size]Nearly 40 years ago, Hawking proposed a radiation that is emitted from black holes, now known as Hawking radiation. The radiation was believed to slowly evaporate the black hole and then disappear, effectively eliminating it and everything that has ever entered the black hole.
[/size]Unfortunately, this creates an information paradox and does not agree with any known law of physics. If this were true, it would mean that the Universe itself was fundamentally unpredictable. If it doesn’t disappear, then where does the information go? Adami’s groundbreaking new study incorporates all of Hawking’s original calculations and combines them with what is now known about quantum systems.
[/size]The missing link, it seems, was the radiation’s stimulated emission. This process was first described by Albert Einstein in 1917: when a photon hits an electron, the electron can be forced from the excited state down to the ground state and that energy difference manifests as another photon. Essentially, it works like a copy machine: one photon in, two photons out. This is the same principle that allows us to have Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; more commonly known as laser. Before light is drawn into the black hole, Adami determined, a copy is made that does not get destroyed. Thus, the information is preserved.
[/size]Though it will take some time for other scientists to check over the math and verify Adami’s work, it has already received some support. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist from Arizona State University agrees with the conclusion. “In my view Chris Adami has correctly identified the solution to the so-called black hole information paradox,” Davies said in a press release. “Ironically, it has been hiding in plain sight for years. Hawking's famous black hole radiation is an example of so-called spontaneous emission of radiation, but it is only part of the story. There must also be the possibility of stimulated emission – the process that puts the S in LASER.”
[/size]According to Adami: “Stephen Hawking’s wonderful theory is now complete in my opinion. The hole in the black hole theory is plugged, and I can now sleep at night.”

[/size]
[/size]http://www.iflscience.com/space/has-hole-stephen-hawking’s-black-hole-theory-been-plugged
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.592
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #67 on: 06-04-2014, 00:14:16 »
Most Convincing Evidence Yet For Dark Matter Detection

Quote
Scientists have been analyzing high-energy gamma rays originating from the center of the Milky Way and have presented the most convincing case so far that at least some of this may come from dark matter.

Dark matter is a type of matter that is thought to account for apparent effects due to mass where no mass can be observed. It behaves differently to normal matter, such as planets and stars, which only accounts for approximately 5% of the universe. It neither emits nor absorbs light or other forms of electromagnetic energy, so a simple definition is that it is matter that does not react to light. The total mass-energy of the known universe is estimated to contain approximately 27% dark matter.

Using data collected from NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, scientists from different institutions generated maps of the center of the galaxy. They found that some of the high-energy gamma rays could not be sufficiently explained by known sources. There are numerous known sources of gamma-rays in the center of the galaxy, such as supernova remnants, but it is also predicted to be rich in dark matter. Although scientists know dark matter exists, they are not entirely sure of what it is composed of. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, or WIMPs, are a strong candidate. It is thought that collision of WIMPs may produce a quickly decaying particle, which could produce gamma rays detectable by Fermi.

Once they removed all the known sources of gamma rays from the Fermi observations, some emission was leftover. If dark matter particles with a particular mass are destroying each other, this would be a remarkable fit for the remaining emission. Despite this, the scientists err on the side of caution since alternative sources may still exist. Further sightings are also required to make this interpretation more convincing.

The Fermi scientists have also turned elsewhere in an attempt to detect dark matter by looking at dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way. Dwarf galaxies are rich in dark matter and lack other types of gamma-ray sources present in the center of the Milky Way which make detection of dark matter problematic. On the flip side, their distance from us and the fact that the dark matter present is still considerably less than that in the center of the Milky Way means that the signals are weak. But according to Elliott Bloom, a member of the Fermi collaboration, “If we ultimately see a significant signal, it could be a very strong confirmation of the dark matter signal claimed in the galactic center.”

While at this stage the signal cannot be confirmed or refuted as dark matter, it represents an exciting step towards the detection of dark matter at the galactic center.

http://www.iflscience.com/space/most-convincing-evidence-yet-dark-matter-detection
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #68 on: 08-04-2014, 09:51:46 »
Zašto u univerzumu (dostupnom našoj opservaciji u ovom trenutku) preovlađuje materija umesto da imamo nekakav balans materije i antimaterije, kad je pretpostavka da su se obe kotirale podjednako dobro u post-big beng periodu? Ovo je jedno od pitanja koje muči fizičare već duže vreme. Medium ima lepu rekapitulaciju cele rasprave o bariogenezi:



Why are we made of matter?

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #69 on: 13-04-2014, 10:03:20 »
Ponovo medium.com:
 
Matematičko izvođenje dokaza da se univerzum potencijalno spontano formirao ni iz čega:
 A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #70 on: 07-07-2014, 10:43:15 »
I ponovo medium.com:


Ask Ethan #44: What came first, black holes or galaxies?



Koliko možemo da vidimo, galaksije u svojim centrima imaju (super)masivne crne rupe. Pitanje je šta je bilo prvo - te crne rupe ili galaksije oko njih?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #71 on: 07-07-2014, 10:51:24 »
Jel' neko postavio teoriju mufova do sada?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #72 on: 22-07-2014, 09:12:44 »
Život, multiverzum i potencijal da se eksperimentalno potvrdi njegovo postojanje:


Will Science Burst the Multiverse's Bubble?



Quote
Physicists aren’t afraid of thinking big, but what happens when you think too big?
This philosophical question overlaps with real physics when hypothesizing what lies beyond the boundary of our observable universe. The problem with trying to apply science to something that may or may not exist beyond our physical realm is that it gets a little foggy as to how we could scientifically test it.
A leading hypothesis to come from cosmic inflation theory and advanced theoretical studies — centering around the superstring hypothesis — is that of the multiverse, an idea that scientists have had a hard time in testing.


In its most basic sense, the multiverse is a collection of universes popping in and out of existence, bustling around in a foamy mess, embedded in a vacuum of non-zero energy. Through quantum fluctuations, universes are born while others die — each universe taking on different forms and different kinds of physics.
But, if the multiverse hypothesis has any shred of reality behind it, how can scientists prove (or at least gather some observational evidence) that we exist inside one of an infinite ocean of universes?
This question is a tough one for scientists as many critics will argue that the multiverse hypothesis is nothing more than metaphysics, or a philosophical discussion. We are forever cocooned inside our universal ‘bubble’ and can therefore never experience what is going on ‘outside’ — if, indeed, there is an outside -- so what's the point in thinking about it?
But in a thought-provoking news release from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Ontario, Canada, theoretical physicists are working hard to marry the multiverse with observational science collected from the furthest-most frontiers of the Cosmos.


“We’re trying to find out what the testable predictions of (the multiverse) would be, and then going out and looking for them,” said Matthew Johnson of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
If the multiverse is real, it stands to reason that, in this rampaging mess of neighboring universal “bubbles,” there should be frequent collisions, much like the jostling balls in a ball pit. Johnson’s team has specifically set out to look for observational evidence of neighboring universes colliding with our own, thereby supplying some hint of observational evidence that we may have universal neighbors.
But to do this, Johnson must model the entire Universe.
“We start with a multiverse that has two bubbles in it, we collide the bubbles on a computer to figure out what happens, and then we stick a virtual observer in various places and ask what that observer would see from there,” said Johnson.
“Simulating the universe is easy.”


Although you have to admire his can-do attitude, the team aren’t simulating every atom, star or galaxy in the Universe; in fact, the computer simulation only models the largest scale structures and forces. “All I need is gravity and the stuff that makes these bubbles up. We’re now at the point where if you have a favorite model of the multiverse, I can stick it on a computer and tell you what you should see,” he said.
This is where, according to the researchers, their work is so important if we are to understand what is going on in the regions beyond our Universe.
For example, if we consider a collision-filled multiverse, Jonson’s model predicts that observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should exhibit rings, or ‘bruises’, where next-door universes are pushing against ours. The CMB is the ubiquitous (yet very faint) ‘echo’ of the Big Bang that can be seen at the most distant reaches of the Universe. If there’s some interaction with universal bubbles (as some multiverse hypotheses suggest), these circular bruises should be present in the CMB signal – -representing distortions in the outermost edge of our ‘bubble.’
Through a brief analysis of CMB maps of the entire sky, it appears that these circular rings are not present, potentially disproving a multiverse filled with colliding universes. Or it at least suggests the collisions aren’t happening now — perhaps the multiverse is in some quiescent state?
As pointed out by the Institute press release, this research isn’t setting out to prove whether or not the multiverse exists, it’s merely identifying possible observational cues that we could look out for. And this pulls extra-universal studies into a scientific endeavor rather than leaving it in a metaphysical funk.






Putting The Multiverse To The Test

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #73 on: 26-09-2014, 09:27:32 »
Crne rupe, heh, ne postoje... tvrdi ovo istraživanje:



Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

Quote
Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.


By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony," said Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."




http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.881
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #74 on: 26-09-2014, 10:19:26 »
Ako sam dobro razumeo oni zaključuju da nijedna crna rupa nije 100% crna, nego samo 99.999%, to jest da neka svetlost može da pobegne.

Edit: nisam dobro razumeo. Oni zaključuju da crna rupa ne može da se formira jer dok se zvezda sabija ona emituje Hokingovu radijaciju u tolikoj meri da izgubi masu potrebnu da se formira crna rupa. Zanimljivo.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #75 on: 26-09-2014, 10:25:38 »
Koliko JA iz ovoga mogu da razaberem, ne kažu ni to, nego kažu da zvezda kada kolabira pod gravitacionim pritiskom ne emituje samo radijaciju nego i masu i to do te mere da na kraju nema dovoljnu masu da kolabira u singularitet...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #76 on: 02-11-2014, 09:52:33 »
Većina planeta u kosmosu, tvrde, zapravo ne orbitira oko zvezde nego jurca unaokolo  :-? :-? :-? :-?
 
 
Throwback Thursday: Most Planets in the Universe are Homeless

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #77 on: 10-11-2014, 11:56:07 »
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing



Quote
Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof




Ko ume da čita, ima i ceo rad ovde:


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf








Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #78 on: 10-11-2014, 12:26:45 »
Takođe:


'Revolutionary' New View of Baby Planets Forming Around a Star



Quote
Welcome to HL Tauri — a star system that is just being born and the target of one of the most mind-blowing astronomical observations ever made.
Observed by the powerful Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, this is the most detailed view of the proto-planetary disk surrounding a young star 450 light-years away. And those concentric rings cutting through the glowing gas and dust? Those, my friends, are tracks etched out by planets being spawned inside the disk.
PHOTOS: Monster Desert Telescope Construction Complete
In short, this is the mother of all embryonic star system ultrasounds. But this dazzling new observation is so much more — it’s a portal into our solar system’s past, showing us what our system of planets around a young sun may have looked like over 4 billion years ago. And this is awesome, because it proves that our theoretical understanding about the evolution of planetary systems is correct.
However, there are some surprises.
“These features are almost certainly the result of young planet-like bodies that are being formed in the disc. This is surprising since such young stars are not expected to have large planetary bodies capable of producing the structures we see in this image,” said Stuartt Corder, ALMA Deputy Director.
NEWS: It’s Always a Windy Day Around This Baby Star
“When we first saw this image we were astounded at the spectacular level of detail,” said Catherine Vlahakis, ALMA Deputy Program Scientist. “HL Tauri is no more than a million years old, yet already its disc appears to be full of forming planets. This one image alone will revolutionize theories of planet formation.”


After a star sparks to life from the gravitational collapse of a star-forming nebula, the leftover gas and dust will collect around the star, creating a disk. Conventional theory suggests that, over time, the disk cools and small particles begin to accrete, forming small pebbles, then asteroids, then planetesimals and, eventually, planets.
PHOTOS: ALMA: New Jewel of the Atacama Desert
As these embryonic planetary bodies orbit the star, they clear a track in the remaining disk of dust, ‘vacuuming’ up the remaining debris with their increasing gravitational dominance, continuing to bulk up their mass.
And this is exactly what we are seeing here. HL Tauri has a protoplanetary disk that is being populated with planets carving out their individual orbital paths. Eventually, the majority of the dust in HL Tauri will be consumed by the growing population of asteroids and planets, maturing into a stable star system like ours. However, the star system seems to be growing up fast, a puzzle that astronomers will no doubt be trying to understand for some time to come.
ALMA is nearing completion and this is the first precision observation in it’s near-fully commissioned configuration. Using the technique of long-baseline interferometry, ALMA is composed of many individual antennae spread over a large area. The distance between the antennae mimics one large antenna spread over a huge area. ALMA can therefore beat the precision of any other observatory on Earth or even in space, including Hubble.
PHOTOS: The Most Mind-Blowing Space Spirals
“The logistics and infrastructure required to place antennas at such distant locations required an unprecedented coordinated effort by an expert international team of engineers and scientists,” said ALMA Director Pierre Cox. “These long baselines fulfill one of ALMA’s major objectives and mark an impressive technological, scientific and engineering milestone.”
“Most of what we know about planet formation today is based on theory,” added Tim de Zeeuw, Director General of the European Southern Observatory. “Images with this level of detail have up to now been relegated to computer simulations or artist’s impressions. This high resolution image of HL Tauri demonstrates what ALMA can achieve when it operates in its largest configuration and starts a new era in our exploration of the formation of stars and planets.”





Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #79 on: 10-11-2014, 12:46:51 »
vole Kinezi te komunističke naslove

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #80 on: 26-11-2014, 13:55:29 »
Complex life may be possible in only 10% of all galaxies


Quote
The universe may be a lonelier place than previously thought. Of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, only one in 10 can support complex life like that on Earth, a pair of astrophysicists argues. Everywhere else, stellar explosions known as gamma ray bursts would regularly wipe out any life forms more elaborate than microbes. The detonations also kept the universe lifeless for billions of years after the big bang, the researchers say.
"It's kind of surprising that we can have life only in 10% of galaxies and only after 5 billion years," says Brian Thomas, a physicist at Washburn University in Topeka who was not involved in the work. But "my overall impression is that they are probably right" within the uncertainties in a key parameter in the analysis.
Scientists have long mused over whether a gamma ray burst could harm Earth. The bursts were discovered in 1967 by satellites designed to spot nuclear weapons tests and now turn up at a rate of about one a day. They come in two types. Short gamma ray bursts last less than a second or two; they most likely occur when two neutron stars or black holes spiral into each other. Long gamma ray bursts last for tens of seconds and occur when massive stars burn out, collapse, and explode. They are rarer than the short ones but release roughly 100 times as much energy. A long burst can outshine the rest of the universe in gamma rays, which are highly energetic photons.
That seconds-long flash of radiation itself wouldn't blast away life on a nearby planet. Rather, if the explosion were close enough, the gamma rays would set off a chain of chemical reactions that would destroy the ozone layer in a planet's atmosphere. With that protective gas gone, deadly ultraviolet radiation from a planet’s sun would rain down for months or years—long enough to cause a mass die-off.
How likely is that to happen? Tsvi Piran, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Raul Jimenez, a theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Barcelona in Spain, explore that apocalyptic scenario in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
Astrophysicists once thought gamma ray bursts would be most common in regions of galaxies where stars are forming rapidly from gas clouds. But recent data show that the picture is more complex: Long bursts occur mainly in star-forming regions with relatively low levels of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium—low in "metallicity," in astronomers’ jargon.
Using the average metallicity and the rough distribution of stars in our Milky Way galaxy, Piran and Jimenez estimate the rates for long and short bursts across the galaxy. They find that the more-energetic long bursts are the real killers and that the chance Earth has been exposed to a lethal blast in the past billion years is about 50%. Some astrophysicists have suggested a gamma ray burst may have caused the Ordovician extinction, a global cataclysm about 450 million years ago that wiped out 80% of Earth's species, Piran notes.
The researchers then estimate how badly a planet would get fried in different parts of the galaxy. The sheer density of stars in the middle of the galaxy ensures that planets within about 6500 light-years of the galactic center have a greater than 95% chance of having suffered a lethal gamma ray blast in the last billion years, they find. Generally, they conclude, life is possible only in the outer regions of large galaxies. (Our own solar system is about 27,000 light-years from the center.)
Things are even bleaker in other galaxies, the researchers report. Compared with the Milky Way, most galaxies are small and low in metallicity. As a result, 90% of them should have too many long gamma ray bursts to sustain life, they argue. What’s more, for about 5 billion years after the big bang, all galaxies were like that, so long gamma ray bursts would have made life impossible anywhere.
But are 90% of the galaxies barren? That may be going too far, Thomas says. The radiation exposures Piran and Jimenez talk about would do great damage, but they likely wouldn't snuff out every microbe, he contends. "Completely wiping out life?" he says. "Maybe not." But Piran says the real issue is the existence of life with the potential for intelligence. "It's almost certain that bacteria and lower forms of life could survive such an event," he acknowledges. "But [for more complex life] it would be like hitting a reset button. You'd have to start over from scratch."
The analysis could have practical implications for the search for life on other planets, Piran says. For decades, scientists with the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, have used radio telescopes to search for signals from intelligent life on planets around distant stars. But SETI researchers are looking mostly toward the center of the Milky Way, where the stars are more abundant, Piran says. That's precisely where gamma ray bursts may make intelligent life impossible, he says: "We are saying maybe you should look in the exact opposite direction."
 


scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #82 on: 02-02-2015, 11:38:17 »
Zgodan tekst da se shvati kako to nije za fantastičarski pristup multiverzumu (multiverzumima?). Smem da se kladim da niko sa ZS, uključujući i sve njihove verzije u multiverzumima nije u stanju da linkovan tekst pročita, a kamoli da razume. Ono šta je bitno za ovaj forum jeste da je literarni deo teorije multiverzuma nastao kao posledica potrebe da se oslobodi prostor za prevazilaženje vremenskog paradoksa. A vremenski paradoks je posledica SF igrarija sa putovanjem kroz vreme, koje se na sličan, naučni način, da obrazložiti kao moguć događaj. Neko će reći da vremenski paradoks egzistira samo u delu putovanja kroz vreme u prošlost, ali, ako se promene u budućnosti mogu posmatrati i kao sadašnjost neke druge stvarnosti, onda paradoks i dalje postoji i varijanta multiverzuma je zgodno rešenje da se prevaziđe. 
Ja sve teorije o multiverzumima shvatam kao stepen slobode naučnoj fantastici da ne bude viđena kao gola fantazija. Bez obzira da li se grade na teoriji struna, zakrivljenom prostoru ili kvantnom titraju univerzuma u kome postoji naša verzija ličnosti, važno je samo da priče u tom tkanju budu uverljive i moguće samo u tom izmenjenom svetu. Sve ostalo je banalizacija i traćenje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #83 on: 10-02-2015, 07:08:44 »
A sad ovo:
 
 No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
Quote
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
Old ideas revisited
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.
In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.
No singularities nor dark stuff
In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.
New gravity particle
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.
Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.
Explore further: Did the universe originate from a hyper-dimensional black hole?
More information: Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].
Saurya Das and Rajat K. Bhaduri, "Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein condensate", preprint: arXiv:1411.0753[gr-qc].
Journal reference: Physics Letters B search and more info website

 
 

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.550
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #84 on: 10-02-2015, 11:34:29 »
ко год да је кренуо бомовим стопама завршио је сучељен са уобичајеном интерпретацијом универзума
...barcode never lies
FLA


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #86 on: 28-02-2015, 07:51:41 »
Monster black hole born shortly after big bang
 
Quote
All galaxies are thought to have supermassive black holes at their center. These start out small—with masses equivalent to between 100 and 100,000 suns—and build up over time by consuming the gas, dust, and stars around them or by merging with other black holes to reach sizes measured in millions or billions of solar masses. Such binge eating usually takes billions of years, but a team of astronomers was stunned to discover what is, in galactic terms, a monstrous baby: a gigantic black hole of 12 billion solar masses in a barely newborn galaxy, just 875 million years after the big bang. The researchers report online in Nature today that they were scouring through several astronomical surveys looking for bright objects in the very early universe called quasars, galaxies that burn very bright because their central black holes are consuming material so fast. The monster they found (depicted in this artist’s impression) is roughly 3000 times the size of our Milky Way’s central black hole. To have grown to such a size in so short a time, it must have been munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate for most of its existence. Its large size and rate of consumption also makes it the brightest object in that distant era, and astronomers can use its bright light to study the composition of the early universe: how much of the original hydrogen and helium from the big bang had been forged into heavier elements in the furnaces of stars.
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #87 on: 25-03-2015, 07:07:44 »
Universe may be on the brink of collapse (on the cosmological timescale)
 
Quote
(Phys.org)—Physicists have proposed a mechanism for "cosmological collapse" that predicts that the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse in on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it. Their calculations suggest that the collapse is "imminent"—on the order of a few tens of billions of years or so—which may not keep most people up at night, but for the physicists it's still much too soon.

In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Nemanja Kaloper at the University of California, Davis; and Antonio Padilla at the University of Nottingham have proposed the cosmological collapse mechanism and analyzed its implications, which include an explanation of dark energy.
"The fact that we are seeing dark energy now could be taken as an indication of impending doom, and we are trying to look at the data to put some figures on the end date," Padilla told Phys.org. "Early indications suggest the collapse will kick in in a few tens of billions of years, but we have yet to properly verify this."
The main point of the paper is not so much when exactly the universe will end, but that the mechanism may help resolve some of the unanswered questions in physics. In particular, why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, and what is the dark energy causing this acceleration? These questions are related to the cosmological constant problem, which is that the predicted vacuum energy density of the universe causing the expansion is much larger than what is observed.
"I think we have opened up a brand new approach to what some have described as 'the mother of all physics problems,' namely the cosmological constant problem," Padilla said. "It's way too early to say if it will stand the test of time, but so far it has stood up to scrutiny, and it does seem to address the issue of vacuum energy contributions from the standard model, and how they gravitate."
The collapse mechanism builds on the physicists' previous research on vacuum energy sequestering, which they proposed to address the cosmological constant problem. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering predict that the universe will collapse, but don't provide a specific mechanism for how collapse will occur.
According to the new mechanism, the universe originated under a set of specific initial conditions so that it naturally evolved to its present state of acceleration and will continue on a path toward collapse. In this scenario, once the collapse trigger begins to dominate, it does so in a period of "slow roll" that brings about the accelerated expansion we see today. Eventually the universe will stop expanding and reach a turnaround point at which it begins to shrink, culminating in a "big crunch."

Currently, we are in the period of accelerated expansion, and we know that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. So in order for the new mechanism to work, the period of accelerated expansion must last until at least this time (needless to say, a mechanism that predicts that the universe has already collapsed is obviously flawed). The collapse time can be delayed by choosing an appropriate slope, which in this case, is a slope that has a very tiny positive value—about 10-39 in the scientists' equation. The very gradual slope means that the universe evolves very slowly.
Importantly, the scientists did not choose a slope just to fit the observed expansion and support their mechanism. Instead, they explain that the slope is "technically natural," and takes on this value due to a symmetry in the theory.
As the physicists explain, the naturalness of the mechanism makes it one of the first ever models that predicts acceleration without any direct fine-tuning. In the mechanism, the slope alone controls the universe's evolution, including the scale of the accelerated expansion.
"The 'technically natural' size of the slope controls when the collapse trigger begins to dominate, but was it guaranteed to give us slow roll and therefore the accelerated expansion?" Padilla said. "Naively one might have expected to have to fine-tune some initial conditions to guarantee this, but remarkably that is not the case. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering guarantee the slow roll."
The idea is still in its early stages, and the physicists hope to build on it much more in the future.
"There is much to do," Padilla said. "Right now we are working on a way to describe our theory in a way that is manifestly local, which will make it more conventional, and more obviously in keeping with some of the key principles behind quantum theory (namely, linear superposition). We would also like to devise more tests of the idea, both cosmological and astrophysical.
"Over the longer term, we would like to understand how our theory could emerge from a more fundamental theory, such as string theory. It is also important to ask what happens when we consider vacuum energy corrections from quantum gravity."
If there was ever a justification that more work is needed, it may be in the paper's conclusion:
"The present epoch of acceleration may be evidence of impending doom. . . A detailed analysis to better quantify these predictions is certainly warranted."

 (Phys.org)—Physicists have proposed a mechanism for "cosmological collapse" that predicts that the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse in on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it. Their calculations suggest that the collapse is "imminent"—on the order of a few tens of billions of years or so—which may not keep most people up at night, but for the physicists it's still much too soon.

 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html#jCp

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #88 on: 13-04-2015, 07:36:29 »
Moguće je da supermasivna crna rupa u centru mlečnog puta fasilitira stvaranje novih zvezda:
 
 Stars May Form in Shadow of Galaxy's Black Hole Beast
 
Quote
Despite the harsh environment created by the monster black hole lurking in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, new observations show that stars — and, potentially, planets — are forming just two light-years away from the colossal giant.
 
Bright and massive stars were spotted circling the 4-million-solar-mass behemoth more than a decade ago, sparking a debate within the astronomy community. Did they migrate inward after they formed? Or did they somehow manage to form in their original positions?
 
ANALYSIS: Rare 'Medium-Sized' Black Hole Creates Galactic Dead Zone
 
Most astronomers had said the latter idea seemed far-fetched, given that the black hole wreaks havoc on its surroundings, often stretching any nearby gas into taffylike streamers before it has a chance to collapse into stars. But the new study details observations of low-mass stars forming within reach of the galactic center. The findings lend support to the argument that "adult" stars observed in this region formed near the black hole. [Images: Milky Way's Monster Black Hole Shreds Space Cloud]
 
The new evidence for ongoing star formation near the black hole is "a nail in the coffin" for the theory that the stars form in situ, said lead author Farhad Yusef-Zadeh, of Northwestern University. The observations, if accurate, make it unlikely that the stars migrated from elsewhere, the researchers said.
 
Birth Near a Black Hole
 
Stars are born within clouds of dust and gas. Turbulence within these clouds give rise to knots that begin to collapse under their own weight. The knots grows hotter and denser, rapidly becoming protostars, which are so-named because they have yet to start fusing hydrogen into helium.
 
ANALYSIS: Why Our Galaxy's Black Hole Didn't Eat Mystery Object
 
But a protostar can rarely be seen. It has yet to generate energy via nuclear fusion, and any faint light it does produce is often blocked by the disk of gas and dust still surrounding it.
 
So, when Yusef-Zadeh and his colleagues used the Very Large Array in New Mexico to scan the skies near the central supermassive black hole, they didn't spot the protostars but rather the disks of gas and dust surrounding them.
 
"You could see these beautiful cometary-shaped structures," Yusef-Zadeh told Space.com. Intense starlight and stellar winds from previously discovered high-mass stars had shaped these disks into cometlike structures with bright heads and tails. Similar structures (called bow shocks) can be seen anywhere young stars are being born, including the famous Orion Nebula.
 
ANALYSIS: Our Galaxy’s Black Hole Does NOT Have the ‘Munchies’
 
"There is, of course, one big catch here — and that is that the tidal force on the black hole is so strong that it's hard to see how these stars would form," Yusef-Zadeh said. "Many people think that star formation is forbidden near a supermassive black hole. But nature finds a way."
 
Astronomers have managed to find a way as well. Over the last decade, they've come up with two scenarios, both of which use the nearby black hole to simulate star formation.
 

 
Kad ste već tu, pogledajte i ovaj video koji objašnjava argumente za postojanje velikog praska, nove i uverljive:
 
 
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/how-we-know-the-big-bang-actually-happened-video.htm


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #90 on: 26-04-2015, 08:14:15 »
Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

Što se mene tiče, ovo je moglo da bude napisano i na kineskom, sve bih isto razumeo kao i sada  :lol:
 
Ali interesantno je.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 47.967
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #91 on: 28-04-2015, 09:25:34 »
Bog možda zaista ne baca kockice, ali se sa galaksijama prilično zajebava:

Tiny and Speedy: 'Homeless' Galaxies Ejected From Clusters



Quote
Like stars that can be ejected from galaxies, resigned to an eternity floating through the darkness of intergalactic space, astronomers have discovered entire galaxies — 11 in total — that underwent some unpleasant gravitational turbulence and flung from their home clusters, marooned in intercluster space.
“These galaxies are facing a lonely future, exiled from the galaxy clusters they used to live in,” said Igor Chilingarian, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Moscow State University.
ANALYSIS: ‘Missing’ Evolutionary Link for Compact Galaxies Found
Runaway stars can be ejected from their host galaxies if they are travelling at a greater speed than that galaxy’s “escape velocity.” Like a rocket leaving Earth’s gravitational well, escape velocity can only be achieved if the rocket is supplied with enough energy to exceed 11.2 kilometers per second (25,000 miles per hour). In the case of a star being ejected from our galaxy, it would need to be traveling a speed of 537 km/s (over 1.2 million miles per hour!).
So you can probably imagine the astronomical speed an entire galaxy would need to travel to leave the gravitational heft of an entire galaxy cluster — a velocity of up to 3,000 km/s (6 million miles per hour), depending on the mass of the cluster.
The 11 runaway galaxies were found by chance while Chilingarian and co-investigator Ivan Zolotukhin, of the L’Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planetologie and Moscow State University, were scouring publicly-available data (via the Virtual Observatory) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the GALEX satellite for compact elliptical galaxies.
ANALYSIS: The Grown-Up Galaxy Among Kids
These tiny galaxies are rare, but the researchers were able to uncover 200 previously unknown compact ellipticals, 11 of which were found to be alone and separated from any galactic cluster. And they are moving really, really fast.
“The first compact ellipticals were all found in clusters because that’s where people were looking. We broadened our search, and found the unexpected,” said Zolotukhin. Elliptical galaxies are thought to originate from larger galaxies that go through gravitational interactions with neighboring galaxies; ellipticals are therefore expected to be clustered near larger ‘parent’ galaxies.
So how did these tiny galaxies, which are approximately 1,000 times smaller than our galaxy, end up so far away from home?
The researchers think that a similar gravitational mechanism that produces runaway stars may be also slingshotting these ellipticals.
“We asked ourselves, what else could explain them? The answer was a classic three-body interaction,” said Chilingarian.
NEWS: Weird Little Galaxy Hides a Giant Black Hole
One way a hypervelocity star can be produced is if one star in a binary pair strays too close to a black hole. When the star gets swallowed, its binary partner is flung away. In the case of a hypervelocity compact elliptical galaxy, should a massive galaxy collide with the elliptical’s parent galaxy, the elliptical could be flung away as the two larger galaxies merge.
For the compact elliptical galaxy, this galactic merger is the start of its long and, potentially, infinite journey into the cosmic abyss.

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.042
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #92 on: 28-04-2015, 10:05:27 »
e,mene ti naucnici zaaaaista zasmejavaju....CRNE RUPE!?!?
ma sve njihove teorije vrede kolko i ono sto izadje iz moje 'crne rupe'....

pobrkali su oni odavno nauku i fantastiku....

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.881
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #93 on: 28-04-2015, 10:52:33 »
Ne veruješ da postoje crne rupe? Ali teorija iza njih i dokazi su više nego solidni. Za širenje našeg celokupnog znanja nije previše bitno što baš ti ne veruješ u crne rupe, ali me zanima otkud to? U šta tačno ne veruješ u vezi sa crnim rupama?

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.042
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #94 on: 28-04-2015, 11:22:06 »
dokazi? kakvi dokazi? nekoliko zatamnjenih pixela iz navodnih opservatorija? i par naucnika koji tapsu jedni druge po ramenu...

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.881
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #95 on: 28-04-2015, 12:26:51 »
Jebiga, sad ja treba da potrošim ceo sat za objašnjenje, da bi se na kraju ispostavilo da samo troluješ. Nije to u redu. Evo ti objašnjenje s linkovima. Za tebe je samo prvi pasus u članku, s obiljem linkova, a posle toga se opovrgava neka friška nova teorija koja kaže da crne rupe matematički ne mogu da postoje, što ovom trenutku nije predmet rasprave, pa bolje ignoriši.

Ali pre nego što stignemo do crnih rupa, da te pitam, veruješ li u Ajnštajnovu opštu teoriju relativiteta? To je nešto u fizici takođe neosporno (za sada). Ono što hoću da kažem je da je nemoguće verovati u jedno, a ne i u drugo. Druga stvar, šta ti znaš o crnim rupama? Jesu li to za tebe samo dve reči, ili imaš neko znanje?

Nemoguće je ne verovati u Ajnštajnovu teoriju, jer su potvrde za njeno postojanje nebrojene. Geostacionarni sateliti ne bi mogli da rade da njhovi časovnici nisu nešto malo sporiji od svih časovnika na Zemlji, a moraju da budu sporiji da bi bili sinhronizovani sa časovnicima na Zemlji, jer se nalaze u slabijem gravitacionom polju. Baš kao što Ajnštajnova teorija kaže, vreme drugačije teče u različitim gravitacionim poljima.

Masivne zvezde iskrivljuju svetlost koja prolazi tik pored njih, super-masivne iskrivljuju još više, a kad ta super-masivnost pređe određenu granicu onda se svetlost iskrivljuje najviše. Jedna posledica Ajnštajnove teorije je da se svetlost koja napušta površinu tela sa kritično velikom gravitacijom nalazi u toliko usporenom vremenu da svetlosti treba praktično beskonačno vremena da napusti gravitaciono polje. Posledica je da tu svetlost (koja zaista postoji) mi nikad nećemo videti, i zato se objekat zove crna rupa. Svetlost postoji, ali mi je nikad nećemo videti.

Druga posledica teorije je da se u blizini masivnih objekata zraci svetlosti iskrivljuju. To vidimo već sada kad posmatramo zvezde na ivici Sunčevog diska. Zvezde se malo pomeraju (vrlo malo), što je u skladu sa idejom da se zraci svetlosti iskrivljuju. E pa, u blizini super-masivnih objekata zraci se toliko iskrivljuju da je moguće videti ono što je iza objekta. Moguće je videti nekoliko slika onoga što je iza objekta. Ako u svemiru vidimo tako nešto, više slika iste stvari, a ne vidimo centar, onda to što ne vidimo je po svemu sudeći crna rupa. Prosto nema šta drugo da bude.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.592
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #96 on: 28-04-2015, 12:33:22 »
Ali pre nego što stignemo do crnih rupa, da te pitam, veruješ li u Ajnštajnovu opštu teoriju relativiteta?

ne znam koliko je to pitanje vere. može se možda dokazati da to ne radi, ali to nije stvar vere.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.042
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #97 on: 28-04-2015, 12:39:41 »
mac, brate, cujes li ti sebe?
uopste ne trolujem,ali moram da se ne slozim da treba 100% verovati svim tim bilmezima...
prvo:To je nešto u fizici takođe neosporno (za sada)....
e jebi ga ako ocekujes i sam da ga neko ospori, onda stvaaaaarno....

a to o casovnicima i gravitaciji?
pa napravljeni su ovde na zemlji a onda otisli negde gde nije zemlja, i trt....
gledao si film WALL-E.....sta se desi sa ljudima....?
prosto objasnjenje...


Svetlost postoji, ali mi je nikad nećemo videti.

....sve same teorije do teorije...ko ti kaze da je necemo videti...? i to je teorija, mozda hocemo...

Jedini cvrst dokaz koji ja mogu da ponudim u vezi svih njihovih teorija, je da nikakve konkretne vajde mi nemamo od svih tih teorija,i da su sve one vise fantastika nego nauka.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.881
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #98 on: 28-04-2015, 12:42:00 »
I naravno nisi posetio link, nisi pročitao, nisi posetio linkove koji su dati u članku, nego si odmah dao svoj komentar u kome ne veruješ, i tačka. Pa dobro, "ne veruj".

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.592
Re: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
« Reply #99 on: 28-04-2015, 13:15:17 »
... nikakve konkretne vajde mi nemamo od svih tih teorija,i da su sve one vise fantastika nego nauka...

Contributions of Physics to the Information Age
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.