20210308

The Demise of Black Holes

PSI Blog 20210308 The Demise of Black Holes

 

[GB: This question is from Pierre Berrigan:]

 

Hello, Glenn!

 

Great initiative. Here is my contribution.

 

Firstly, since you ask, a universe truly infinite and eternal would not change much in my life, because that’s how I always thought it would be. There is, however, one thing that bothers me, and that’s the question of « black holes ».

 

Of course, black holes as pictured by general relativity don’t really exist because they would be absurdities. Nevertheless, observation shows that plasma tend to gather itself and form stars, which eject plasma to form new stars as they go supernova at the end of their life, and so on. However, supernovae leave an inert nucleus behind, whether you call it a neutron star or a black hole being irrelevant. The point is that after an infinite time, everything in the universe would be inert dead stars nuclei.

 

So, in my view, the missing piece in an eternal universe is a recycling mechanism that could turn neutron stars or black holes into useable matter again. How do we go about this?]

 

[GB: Thanks Pierre for the interesting question. Let me approach this via univironmental analysis and neomechanics. Each portion of the universe (what I call a “microcosm”) forms from the convergence of other portions along with their respective motions. The demise of each microcosm occurs in reverse, via the divergence of the submicrocosms and their associated motions within each microcosm.

 

Wikipedia puts it this way:

 

“When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E=mc2). Consequently, an evaporating black hole will have a finite lifespan.”

 

And so it goes... Nothing in the universe lasts forever. The “evaporation” comment bespeaks of the process of divergence. That is analogous to what happens to the water droplets on your bathroom mirror, which form under humid conditions and evaporate under less humid conditions. The key here is the change in the macrocosm, the environment of the microcosm of the water droplet or of the misnamed “black hole.”

 

Black holes are more properly called the nuclei of galaxies and large stars. As Steve and I mentioned in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,” cosmic bodies form via accretion and disappear via excretion. Accretion occurs when the body is rotating rapidly and excretion occurs when it slows down. The rotation causes the heaviest elements to be pushed to the center of the resulting vortex, following Stoke’s Law. That is why the Sun has accumulated about 99% of the mass of the solar system in only 4.6 billion years. On the other hand, the Milky Way’s black hole has accumulated less than 1% of the mass of the galaxy during the last 15.3 billion years.[1]

 

As we wrote in our book:

 

“…the Sun rotated about 160 million times before it accreted enough matter to clear the circum-stellar materials orbiting it.

By applying 160 million rotations to the Milky Way, the calculation shows that it will take another 37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[2]

 

That would leave us with a bare-naked black hole, which, being mostly nonluminous, would not be easily seen with our present observational equipment. There could be billions or even trillions of these evaporating former galactic nuclei within the observable universe, but we might not be able to detect them. As you mentioned, the nuclei of large stars (over 20 times the size of the Sun) can themselves form black holes. This appears typical of what happens after a supernova explodes, scattering elements fused under pressures higher than afforded by the Sun. That itself is a recycling process, for without those explosions, the primordial solar system would not have scooped up the really heavy elements such as gold, platinum, and uranium.

 

Also, with regard to recycling, remember that all matter in the universe is always in motion. That is why the existence of any particular microcosm is only temporary. The submicrocosms within are always in motion and ever tend to “excrete” or “diverge” into the macrocosm as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Speculation

 

The whole concept of “black holes” is dubious, just like the misnomer used to describe them. In fact, “black holes” are neither black nor holes. Being derived from General Relativity Theory, the concept has an element of the usual “einsteinism” (right, for the wrong reason). As mentioned, vortices tend to form a dense core or nucleus via rotation in the same way baryonic matter forms from aether particles.[3] Sure enough, galaxies tend to have dense cores, just like Earth, Sun, supernovae and a billion other vortices—"Einstein was right again.” Hawking could use the mathematical idealism to sanctify the opposite end of Einstein’s perfectly empty space absolutism. The resulting “singularity” essentially was perfectly solid matter, suitable for starting the universe and for ending galaxies.

 

Some calculate the density of some black holes to be as great as 2 X 1015 g/cm3. In the appendix of “Infinite Universe Theory” I used Planck’s Constant to calculate the density of a single aether particle to be 1010 g/cm3. That would mean black holes would have to consist of the constituents of aether particles, the submicrocosms we called aether-2 particles in our book. Remember, in Infinite Universe Theory there is no end to the size of microcosms. We speculate that there are aether-3, aether-4 particles ad infinitum. This assumes there can be no “finite particle” consisting of perfectly solid matter, which, having no submicrocosms in motion, would be a violation of Maxwell’s E=mc2 equation. That is why the elder Hawking’s assumption that “black” holes are really gray, not black is one small step toward reality.

 

Exactly how black holes evaporate is not completely clear. The E=mc2 equation would suggest the loss of mass via the emission of motion to the aether medium across the microcosmic border as occurs for all the other microcosms in the universe.[4] The resulting emission of motion and increased illumination apparently is great enough to produce the “grayness” proclaimed by Hawking’s recant.

 

The above handles the loss of submicrocosmic motion from black holes, but what about the submicrocosms themselves? What is it about the macrocosm that would allow the internal constituents to leave the black hole via the Second Law of Thermodynamics like they do for all microcosms in the universe? Cosmogonists claim that the inside temperature of black holes is close to absolute zero, as might be expected from the super high density mentioned above. On the other hand, the outside supposedly has an exceedingly high temperature which, like the Sun’s corona, would be expected to energize the submicrocosms on the black hole’s surface, ejecting particles hither and yon. This is similar to what happens to a drop of water when it contacts the surface of a hot skillet or is placed in a room with less than 100% humidity.

 

Then what happens when the heat source becomes exhausted? How do the relatively inert, cold submicrocosms within a black hole eventually get enough motion to diverge back into the macrocosm? Once again, the answer lies with univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). The “heat source” is never really exhausted. A bare-naked black hole is not surrounded by perfectly empty space like Einstein assumed, but by aether particles in constant motion. Their motion and the motion of their various complexes is so great that measurements indicate intergalactic temperature is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is much higher than the inside temperature of black holes.

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

“A black hole of one solar mass (M) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5×1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 K, absorbing as much radiation as it emits.”

 

The absorption of this motion causes the submicrocosms within the black hole to vibrate, disintegrating into the various high-speed aetherial components from which they came. No matter what one thinks about the black hole calculations of the cosmogonists, it is obvious that cosmic nuclei do not contain perfectly solid matter and are not eternal. For black holes, it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust like it is for everything in the Infinite Universe.   

 

 


       

 



[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 164 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

[2] Ibid, p. 172. 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Chapter 16.4 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

1 comment:

Glenn Borchardt said...

Pierre:

Thanks again for your question. Your prize copy of TSW is on the way.