markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

Regarding “Black Holes,” Galactic Centers, and the Origin of Our Universe

Regarding “Black Holes,” Galactic Centers, and the Origin or Our Universe

by  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  mark.creekwater@gmail.com

Apology

The term “black holes” appears inside quotation marks because the writer sincerely believes that some of the commonly accepted ideas and opinions re these objects are incorrect, including ideas which many scientists believe, which are taught in graduate schools, and appear in textbooks and on internet-sites.  In fact, the writer believes that “black holes” (as textbooks describe them) do not really exist.  Regardless, one can look at the standard textbook descriptions of “black holes” to learn something re the true nature of a similar class of objects, which the writer believes actually do exist.

Summary [i.e., “Abstract”]

In the following discussion it is stated that large “black holes” are not very dense, in spite of the popular misconception that all “black holes” are super dense objects.  Some of the implications of this fact are examined, and a proposal based on Ernest Sternglass’s “electron-positron pair model of matter” is presented.

Key words:  big bounce, big crunch, black hole, escape velocity, Schwarzschild, Simhony, singularity, Sternglass;

 

Introduction

So called “black holes” were once known as “frozen stars” [Ref.#1].  It is said that a “black hole” forms when the density of ordinary matter (most of which, by weight, consists of protons and neutrons) becomes so great that gravitational attraction prevents anything from escaping,  even electromagnetic radiation (“light”).  This is because a very dense object has a very large surface gravity, with a very large “escape velocity” associated with it:  if you throw something up at less than the escape velocity, then it will come back down.  Because, in general, nothing can move faster than the speed of light, it will come back down if the escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light.  

How does one calculate the escape velocity associated with an object ??  There is a good derivation of the math-formula for escape velocity at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity  …

The equation is:  Ve = the square root of (2GM/r)      (Eqn.1),  

where “Ve” is escape velocity, “G” Newton’s gravitational constant, “M” is the object’s mass, and “r” is its radius.  

Inspection of the equation reveals that, if an object’s radius is small enough, then the escape velocity might be equal to or greater than the speed of light, so that nothing, not even light, can escape from its surface.  Historically this is how scientists hundreds of years ago came up with the idea of an object so dense that even light cannot escape from it.  {Kip Thorne’s book Black Holes and Time Warps (1994) has an interesting and entertaining description of the history of the “black hole” idea [Ref.#1].  For example, his thesis-adviser at Princeton, John Archibald Wheeler, invented the term “black hole”}  

One can derive the famous “Schwarzschild formula” for the radius of a “black hole” from Eqn.1 by setting “Ve” equal to “c” and solving it for “r“:   r = 2GM/c.c     (Eqn.2).  

A “black hole” is just simply an object whose escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light.

While almost every physics enthusiast in the entire known universe has seen Eqn.2, it is probable that many have never studied it carefully enough to determine what it reveals re the true nature of so-called “black holes.”  One purpose of this essay is to do exactly that:  to study the simple equation to learn more about the true nature of so-called “black holes.”  

 

Some Simple Ideas re the True Nature of “Black Holes”

One obvious idea embodied in equation 2 is that the radius of a “black hole” is directly proportional to its mass.  This is not true for ordinary objects with which we are familiar.  A cannonball whose radius is two times that of another cannonball has a mass which is, not twice as great, but eight times as great, i.e., proportional to the cube of the radius.  Obviously the two cannonballs  have equal densities, assuming that they are made of the same kind of material.  But a “black hole” whose radius is twice the size of that of another “black hole” has a mass which is only twice as great, not eight times as great.  So its density is only one fourth [1/4]  that of the smaller “black hole.”  

A “black hole” whose mass is equal to that of our sun would (according to Eqn.2) have a radius of approximately 3 km.  The density of such a “black hole” would be be approx. 1.77E16 grams/cc, where a “cc” is a cubic centimeter.  This is significantly greater than the density of protons and neutrons.  On the other hand, a “black hole” whose mass is that of a small galaxy, say 2E43 grams, would have a radius of approx. 3E10 km and a density of only approx. 1.77E-4 grams/cc.  And a “black hole” whole mass is that of a large galaxy, [approx. 2E46 grams], would have a radius of approx. 3E13 km, and a density of only approx. 1.77E-10 grams/cc.  

 

The Size of Our Universe

If a “black hole” had the mass of our universe, [say 1.5E56 grams], then its radius would be approx. 2.2E28 cm and its density would be only approx. 3.35E-30 grams/cc.  Note that this is approx. the average mass-density of our universe, (i.e., the so-called “critical density”), which is given as approx. 10E-29 grams/cc.  

The implication of this observation is that our universe might be in fact a very large “black hole” —– in the sense that nothing can ever escape from it, not even light.  This is how Sternglass [Ref.#2] defines the limits of our universe;  and he says that the fact that we are not crushed to death means that standard textbook descriptions of “black holes” might be, to say it politely, not quite right.  

In the opinion of this writer, the idea that all “black holes” are super dense objects, (so that nothing can survive inside a “black hole”), is one of the main errors in the popular perception of what a “black hole” is.  According to Schwarzschild’s famous math-formula [Eqn.2], only small “black holes” are very dense:  larger “black holes” are not very dense.  

This myth, that all “black holes” are super dense, originates from the idea (found in standard textbook descriptions) that the material in an object gets crushed down to a “singularity” whose volume is zero when a “black hole” forms.  This idea is impossibly unscientific and scientifically impossible, because no kind of material can occupy a volume of zero.  

As already mentioned, a “black hole” is merely an object within which the “escape velocity” is greater than the speed of light.  The discussion above features a “black hole” whose mass is that of a galaxy;  this object satisfies the Schwarzschild equation, so it’s a “black hole” — but it’s not very dense.  One needs to keep this in mind when talking about “black holes.”

 

How This Relates to Sternglass’s model

As already mentioned, textbooks describe a “black hole” as an object in which a quantity of ordinary matter is crushed down to a volume of zero, which is obviously not possible, in this universe, or in any other universe, because anything which exists must occupy some non-zero volume.  That said, the textbooks also say that there is an “event horizon” associated with a “black hole” — whose radius is given by Eqn.2, above.  

These two ideas, considered together, are definitely “schizophrenic”:  on the one hand a zero-volume space with something massive in it is presumed;  on the other hand a volume within a spherical surface called the “event horizon” is defined, and given a numeric value by a famous math-formula found in every Physics 101 textbook in the entire known universe.

In this essay the writer offers a proposal to resolve this difficulty and help reveal what a “black hole” really is.  

Sternglass’s “electron-positron pair model of matter” [Ref.#2] features “cosmological systems” [cosmo.systs] — which are a kind of object not like any of the ordinary matter with which we are familiar, given that they contain no protons or neutrons.  Instead, they are composed of pure energy:  each consists of the electromagnetic field of a rotating electron-positron pair, which rotates as a “rigid body” so that its outer edge moves at almost the speed of light.  

Sternglass says that all the cosmo.systs are produced by an single initial cosmo.syst, —(a “primeval atom”)— which contained all the mass/energy in our universe, but offers no explanation for how the primeval atom formed [Ref.#2].  The writer of this essay suggests that it might have formed as a result of a “big crunch” —(the opposite of a “big bang”)— in which all the mass in our universe periodically contracts down to a very small volume which produces an immense pressure, which transforms everything into pure energy, in the form of an electromagnetic field.  

According to this line of thought, if an object is subjected to enough pressure, it will first break down into the fundamental objects which compose it, and then these will break down further by transforming into an EM field, analogous to how an electron and a positron some times transform into a photon, i.e., into pure energy.  When the entire universe does this it is called a “big crunch” or a “big bounce.”  This is an idea which many physicists are presently considering, as a quick google search easily reveals.  Below is a quote from Wikipedia:

“The Big Bounce is a hypothetical cosmological model for the origin of the known universe. It was originally suggested as a phase of the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang, where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. It receded from serious consideration in the early 1980s after inflation theory emerged as a solution to the horizon problem, which had arisen from advances in observations revealing the large-scale structure of the universe. In the early 2000s, inflation was found by some theorists to be problematic and unfalsifiable in that its various parameters could be adjusted to fit any observations, so that the properties of the observable universe are a matter of chance. An alternative picture including a Big Bounce was conceived as a predictive and falsifiable possible solution to the horizon problem, and has been under active investigation since 2017.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

In other words this is not a “crack-pot” idea, but has become fashionable among serious physicists during recent years.  

The primeval atom in Sternglass’s model was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre when Sternglass was about 7 or 8 years old [Ref.#3].  Sternglass says that the size of this monster is given by the Schwarzschild formula [Eqn.2], and that it produced everything in our present universe, by a process which he details in his book [Ref.#2].  The writer of this essay believes that there is in our universe an ether-like substance which inter-penetrates all the ordinary matter in it, and that the atoms which compose the ordinary matter are very large and porous when compared to the elements which compose this ether-like substance.  This idea is based on Menahem Simhony’s “electron-positron lattice model of space” [Ref.#4], which proposes the existence of an ether-like substance.  

Please note that there is presently some interest among serious physicists in the possible existence of “ether” — including Nobel prize winners Robert B. Laughlin  and Gerard ‘t Hooft, and that in 1951 Paul Dirac, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, wrote in support of the ether concept:

“According to the philosophical point of view of Einstein, Dirac, Bell, Polyakov, ’t Hooft, Laughlin, de Broglie, Maxwell, Newton and other theorists, there might be a medium with physical properties filling ’empty’ space, an aether, enabling the observed physical processes” [Ref.#5].

According to Simhony’s model, this ether-like substance is composed of a continuous lattice of electrons and positrons, which is bound together by strong electromagnetic forces, and is very stiff, due to the large strength of these forces.  How can we even move, if this stuff is very stiff, and everywhere in our universe ??  Because the tiny distances between the elements which compose the lattice are just right to allow the nucleus of an atom to go between them.  In other words, the nuclei in the atoms which compose our physical bodies are small enough to easily go between the elements which compose the lattice.

{Note: since 1911 it has been known that atoms are mostly empty space, because most of the mass is concentrated at the center, in the atom’s nucleus}

This writer believes that electric and magnetic fields in our universe exist as a result of small changes in the orientations of the elements which compose the lattice, compared to their normal orientations.  According to this idea, the extreme pressure of the most recent big crunch (which caused the Big Bang to start) caused all the ordinary matter in our universe to “disappear” —– creating in its place small changes in the orientations of trillions of trillions of the elements which compose the lattice.  The amount of energy needed to produce all these small changes was equal to the mass/energy content of the material which “disappeared” — so that energy was conserved.  I.e., the total amount of mass/energy stayed the same, but changed its form.  The big picture is this:  all the small changes in the orientations of the elements which compose the lattice, taken together, and considered as a single unit, constituted the very large electromagnetic field which Sternglass calls the primeval atom.  This monster eventually “created” our universe as we know it, by a process which Sternglass describes in his book, [Ref.#2].  

As already mentioned, Sternglass’s model features a special kind of stuff which contains no protons or neutrons, but consists of large chunks of pure energy, each in the form of an electromagnetic field.  In his book, Sternglass examines these cosmo.systs [“cosmological systems”] in detail.  His Table 1 on page 234 gives “Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems predicted by the electron-positron pair model of matter.”  He calls these objects “black holes” but says that they are significantly different from the “black holes” which textbooks describe, and describes how they are different.  For one thing, they are larger, than a textbook “black hole” of the same mass would be, and therefore less dense.  Only the initial primeval atom had a radius equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a “black hole” of that mass.  All the other cosmological systems are larger, and therefore less dense, than a textbook “black hole” of equal mass would be.

 

Regarding the “Supermassive” Objects at the Centers of Galaxies

The scientific community generally accepts the idea that there is a very massive [“supermassive”] object at the center of almost every large galaxy, and some smaller ones, which produce high energy emissions of several different kinds.  A recent paper by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Maryland reports that “very high-energy neutrinos, ultra high-energy cosmic rays, and high-energy gamma rays” might be explained as originating “simultaneously” from “supermassive black hole(s)” [Ref.#6].  

{Question:  why does the report in the Penn State News (26 Jan 2018) not explain that most so-called “cosmic rays” are high-energy protons ??}

According to the standard model, the source of these high-energy emissions is a massive or supermassive “black hole” — which produces the observed high-energy emissions by sucking in ordinary matter from an “accretion disk.”  Sternglass’s model is consistent with this idea, except that the very massive objects are more like “white holes” than “black holes”:  in Sternglass’s model, nothing gets sucked in, and massive quantities of stuff come out.  

It’s very difficult for astronomers to measure the size of one of these super massive objects at the center of a galaxy, due to large amounts of stars and gas and dust and other stuff in front of them, and also due to the fact that they are not actually visible, whether one considers them as “black holes” or “white holes.”  So estimates of their size are based on indirect observations, such as, for example, the amounts and kinds of stuff which they emit.  

This provides a way to test Sternglass’s model:  if it turns out that the actual sizes of these massive and supermassive objects are larger than predicted by equation 2 (above), then this would be evidence for the correctness of Sternglass’s model.

 

Conclusion

Based on ideas and evidence presented in this essay, one can say that their might be significant errors in the descriptions of “black holes” found in textbooks and on internet-sites.  One way to learn the truth is to develop ways to more accurately measure the sizes and/or the densities of the very massive objects which astronomers observe at the centers of galaxies.  If the sizes turn out to be larger (and/or the densities turn out to be smaller) than those of textbook “black holes” with similar masses, then this supports Sternglass’s model.  

 

References

(1)  Thorne, Kip, book:  Black Holes and Time Warps (1994)

(2)  Sternglass, Ernest, book:  Before the Big Bang (1997,2001)

(3)  Lemaitre, Georges, book:  The Primeval Atom (English translation 1950)

(4)  Simhony, Menahem, internet-site:  www.EPOLA.co.uk

(5)  Internet-site:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

(6)  Fang, Ke and Murase, Kohta, “Linking high-energy cosmic particles by black-hole jets embedded in large-scale structures,” Nature (22 Jan 2018)

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  amateur physics enthusiast,  Phoenix, Arizona

MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com                            anti-copyright  9 February 2018

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on September 7, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: