Another, and at first thought quite interesting, possibility that just now came to me is that we wouldn't actually have a balance between amount of created and destroyed energy. Instead we would have a process that creates new energy at steady rate and a process that destroys energy at varying rate (and random within certain limits). Sounds rather awkward, but it might have interesting consequences, namely varying cosmological evolution. At one time the energy destruction process would be on overdrive, and as a result you would have an universe with quite low energy content. Then the energy destruction process would calm down and the energy content would start to rise. There would be increasing amount of matter created. Sounds like something that might have been occurred 15 billion years ago.
Can it be that GR does not adequately describe BHs, and that they are not bound by event horizons?
If this is possible, BH's can accumulate material from within a galaxy, and after getting gravitationally perturbed out of the galaxy, radiate energetically, appearing as a quasar. This would moot the question of "creation", since matter would accrete in one domain, be perturbed out of that domain, and be released in another. The steep gravitational well of the radiating BH would in this instance be a likely suspect for the source of intrinsic redshift, which would moderate as the quasar matures and its outer regions grow farther and farther from its center of gravity.
I don't think that they are eternal, but form and evaporate. Please humor me here and for a while consider my vacuum polarization model of gravitation. In domains dominated by matter, G (a variable in my model) is much larger than in relatively empty space. What does this have to do with the behavior of black holes? Let's consider that matter accretes to form what we call a BH in the center of a large galaxy. Some time later, in a gravitational slingshot or radiation recoil with another BH, it gets thrown out of the galaxy. While it was in the nucleus of the galaxy it was subject to a very dense polarized quantum vacuum field, resulting in a very large value for G. Now it is out of the galaxy in a relatively thin quantum vacuum field, where the value for G is much smaller, and the binding energy that once kept the BH's matter concentrated is greatly reduced, causing the BH to rapidly shed material. Now we see it as a quasar. I think these things form in domains dominated by matter (simply by gravitational accretion), and that they evaporate when they are perturbed out of that large-G domain - a continuous recycling of matter.But in terms of matter/energy recycling, what are we suggesting here? Are the "black holes" infinitely lasting objects that cyclically accrete matter, radiate it out, accrete matter, ...?
Some time later, in a gravitational slingshot or radiation recoil with another BH, it gets thrown out of the galaxy.
I think these things form in domains dominated by matter (simply by gravitational accretion), and that they evaporate when they are perturbed out of that large-G domain - a continuous recycling of matter.
Well, there are a LOT of galaxies out there, too, and it is possible that many of those galaxies have multiple BHs in their cores. It is not easy for BHs to merge once they have formed, leading to gravitational slingshot/radiation recoil ejection scenarios.Hmm... there are quite a lot of quasars out there. That would take a lot of accidental close encounters with two BH's. I don't know if that's a problem, but it just makes me wonder about it.
No, I am not bringing creation into the equation at all - simply proposing a mechanism by which matter that has accreted through gravitational attraction can be redistributed. I envision a SS universe with constant recycling of matter.As you are not mentioning matter or energy creation, I assume you are going for some sort of perpetual machine idea, right? And if that's so, depending on your redshift mechanism you might have entropy problem, i.e. if photons loose energy during their travel in your model, then I think you might have entropy problem, like we discussed in "Second law of thermodynamics in static universe" thread.
In my early model of quasar formation, I envisioned that matter could accrete at the LaGrange points of a binary BH and be kicked out of the system by gravitational slingshotting. My thought was that the ejected body could be very dense (but not behind an event horizon) because it accreted in a strong gravitational field, then radiate energetically when it was kicked out. As I mentioned, though, at that time I did not have a mechanical model of gravitation that encompassed a variable G.Gravitational slingshotting... that's the third mechanism I have heard suggested for quasar ejections. First one is Narlikar & Arp (well, actually there's four of them as QSSC has it's own mechanism that differs slightly from N & A mechanism). Second one is by "Coldcreation" of BAUT forum, here's the thread about it, it's based on La Grange points and I think it's very interesting suggestion.
I should have been more clear in the first place. I do not think that a galaxy must have a single massive body at its core - it could have several. Such a massive body could have a very active accretion zone when it is in the core of a galaxy, but if it is kicked out of its host, its luminosity must arise from shedding mass and energy that it collected from the host, not from continued accretion in relatively empty space.There's one thing though, you suggest that the central BH is being ejected out, and yet we see quasars associated with galaxies that seem to have their central BH at place. What is that all about then?
No, I have not. In fact I did not know of him until my model was well-developed, and I had to go to the BAUT forum to discuss it. Discussion of non-mainstream theoretical ideas is not allowed on PF. The only substantive discussions I have had about my model of vacuum polarization with a researcher was a series of email messages with Hal Puthoff, and they centered around the polarizing mechanism. He favors a sort of van der Waals force, while I prefer to model the polarization as virtual pairs arising in the orientation that requires them to borrow the smallest amount of energy from the vacuum. Well, there was the (locked) thread on BAUT, if you can call that assemblage of nay-saying posts and red herrings "discussion". My view that G is larger in matter-dominated domains than in "empty" space arose naturally out of my vacuum polarization model. It was not initially my intention to address that issue - it just happened. I initially started playing with vacuum polarization to model gravitational lensing as a purely classical optical refractive effect, and once I got the polarization model refined, it turned out that the model must result in variable G as well as variable c. If my model is correct (or at least a fair approximation), the Loop Quantum Gravity folks could have their background-independent model of space-time and start unifying quantum theory with what is left of GR. Roger Penrose thinks that both quantum theory and GR will have to be modified if they are to be united. My feeling is that quantum theory will come out of this pretty much unscathed, while GR may be unrecognizable. Einstein recognized that in GR, c is not a constant, but a variable. I have read nothing that indicates that he thought G might be variable as well.Your ideas, way you present them here, resemble lot of Jerry Jensen's ideas. At least I recall at some point he was going for similar gravity-is-stronger-close-to-matter-concentrations thing. Have you discussed these things with him?
Not necessarily. If they are quietly sucking up dust and gas in the galactic core, they might not have accretion disks luminous enough to be detectable. In our own galactic core, the presence of a BH has been inferred from the orbital dances of some bright massive stars. The BH is not visible.Multiple BH's do solve the problem, but wouldn't we be able to see them in galaxies?
Light loses energy by redshifting, but there is no loss of energy in total. Energy and mass are interchangeable and are in equilibrium. In my model, gravitation concentrates matter and allows it to radiate when the matter is ejected from matter-rich domains (BHs slingshotted out of galactic cores, for instance). I think I know what quasars are, and given the powers of intrinsic redshift to confuse cosmological distances, they are nowhere near as luminous nor energetic as the mainstream thinks. They are relatively nearby, and they are shedding mass/energy at a reasonable rate. In the mainstream view, z~6 quasars mass several GSol and are gobbling up host galaxies of over a trillion solar masses. Nobody has convinced me that such monsters can have formed only a few hundred million years after the BB, especially since z~6 quasars are routinely more highly metallized than the Sun. Where is the room for that evolution in metallicity? The BB is dead. The priests and acolytes of the BB refuse to consider it, though.If you have constant recycling of matter, how is energy recycled? If I have understood correctly, you lose energy by redshifting in your model, where do you get more energy to replace the lost energy?
Not necessarily. If they are quietly sucking up dust and gas in the galactic core, they might not have accretion disks luminous enough to be detectable. In our own galactic core, the presence of a BH has been inferred from the orbital dances of some bright massive stars. The BH is not visible.
Light loses energy by redshifting, but there is no loss of energy in total.
Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill
