First Evidence Black Holes Source of Dark Energy - EXPLAINED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- Earlier this week, a physicists claimed they had proven a link between mysterious “dark energy” that is accelerating the expansion of the universe and supermassive black holes at the hearts of galaxies.
0:00 Do Black Holes Create Dark Energy?
0:46 Is the Universe Expanding?
3:26 Gravity Vs Dark Energy
6:41 The Growth of Black Holes
8:48 Those That Stare at Black Holes
11:15 Do Black Holes Make the Universe Expand?
13:46 The Fate of the Universe
#blackhole #darkenergy #breakthrough
Links to papers here:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
Interested in what I do? Sign up to my Newsletter.
100% free forever and good for the environment.
drbenmiles.substack.com/
My Links:
/ drbenmiles
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My gear:
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv 
Наука
@DrBecky has a great critical review of this breakthrough. It's her field and I'd recommend checking it out: ruclips.net/video/3gg1OS435UE/видео.html
The source of dark energy is in the soulless heart of Donald Trump!
Glad you’ve seen that, does it change / persuade your perspective since publishing the video? She’s very convincing, and it’s her research subject
Thanks Ben!
Your title is wrong. This isn't evidence. It's bullshit piled high enough to give those "astrophysicists" access to government grants.
I’ve been pondering for many years that space time is the “glue” holding the universe together. Black holes eat space time. Less space time means less glue and the universe gets bigger. Since the universe is a bubble of space time, mass, and energy the outside of the universe must be no space time, and zero values for mass and energy. So it naturally wants to expand but that the glue acts to hold the bubble together.
I studied degree level physics over thirty years ago and always thought black holes might have something to do with the expanding universe.
For me this is an exciting development, great time to be alive.
But what is the critical point?
What was before the first black hole?
Was Universe static? Was it collapsing?
@@RockBrentwood Yes we all can be very precise with language, that is what I meant. True that the accelerating expansion was not confirmed until 1998, but there was definitely discussions of that nature around that time, certainly at my university.
@@craigfowler7098 Of course you don't find strange that these videos about dark matter and universe expansion are all over the place now that JWST has confirmed standard model AND BIG BANG are a scam
I thought that listening to PBS space time, the larger the mass the larger the impact of its gravitic field which would cause expansion of orbital range, which would drive wider ranges. As a complete non educated I've watched a lot of stuff like this and I honestly think both of them are just 'gravitic effects'
In a half asleep dream imagining, I pictured this: Blackholes not only Frame drag the "grid" of spacetime around in a kind of torque, they also Frame SUCK the spacetime inward as well. So the expansion of spacetime is the pulling of the 'sheets' down each big black hole- so the 'grid' between black holes gets stretched, and thats the redshift we see, as opposed to any actual expansion.
That's really interesting!
I had this idea for years. Since the observable universe is just a tiny part of the entierty, the cumulative effect from the sum of all black holes (majority of which are outside what we can observe) would create an effect that, when observed from our cosmological bubble, looks like expanding space.
I do not have access to a theoretical physicist to tell me how is that idea wrong and I am sure it must be right? Since the idea is so simple, I'm sure they thought of it, and then discarded it, otherwise it would be mentioned somewhere...
If that was the case the Universe would be contracting instead of expanding
@@kirkhunter146 not if the initial velocity of matter in the universe was past escpae velocity from the universe. And then, the
'inner" black holes are accelerated outwards, but not by gravity but by the fact that space itself is accelerating outwards. At some point a given inner black hole overtakes outer ones, and becomes speeding up the formerly outer ones, who accelerate and overtake again, ad infitum.
The implications are incredible. That means there is a way to use matter to power space time motion which means an Alcumbierre drive is feasible.
It's not feasible because the Alcubierre drive requires matter of negative energy density and in the amounts, pressures, and temperatures, and momenta approaching those of the inside of a neutron star. So not only nonexistent but also quite impractical 🙂
Sabine Hossenfelder pooh-poohs this in her latest Science News video, saying "I really think physicists keep screwing themselves over by calling this [Cosmological] constant Dark Energy" and "It seems likely to me that soon enough someone else will come up with a perfectly mundane explanation for the data and you'll never hear of this idea again." I give her more credence and weight than that latest headline-grabber.
Huh, weird. I think I must have fundamentally misunderstood what Hawking Radiation was, cause I thought it was the mechanism that made Black Holes shrink - not was another source of feeding them?
That’s because what he described wasn’t hawking radiation. It’s the common depiction, but actual Hawking radiation is more complex.
A more accurate description of Hawking radiation (as I understand it from other videos on the topic) is that the event horizon cuts off certain vibrational modes in the quantum fields. This means that the fields cannot be in their respective vacuum states, and so to restore them, particles effectively pop into existence with the necessary vibrational modes to restore the fields to their natural state. The particles produced are random (i.e. not limited to only photons) and have a wavelength of the event horizon’s diameter. And in order to get away from the black hole the particles effectively steal energy from it or the space around it, thereby reducing its mass.
Also, because of weird relativity stuff, an observer close to the black hole will not see any particles, but an observer far away could.
@@LordAmerican What is a vibrational mode?
I thought particle pairs popped in and out of existence everywhere, not just in response to black holes?
@@DeDraconis You have to understand, qft and the particles of the standard model aren't really particles, they're waves. Seriously, it's a common misconception that they're both particles and waves, but it really is just wavea, and localozed highly stable waves.
Quantum fields need an exact amount of energy to generate a "particle". But quantum fields do SO MUCH MORE. Particles do not mediate force, fields do So when two electrons repel each other, only the field is involved We say they exchange virtual particles, but thats just a hack to make calculationa less difficulr, but theybatenr real. Their approximauoms of the continuous fields actually doing the work. Even empty fields all have a non zero rest energy thanks to the uncertainty principle.
I'm getting there, don't worry. Think of a quantum field as extending drln one "end " of the universe to the other. Now, put a black hold in the way. Because quantum fields are are always shaking, they always have some wave activity. When put a black hole in the way, it literally puts a hole in the field. That really disrupts the field, and certain frequencies or modes (loose analogy) become impossible. Because quantum fields are everywhere spacetime is, they are inside the black hole too. That should help you visualize how energy can leak from the black hole.
A mode is the quantum field behavior when it is disjointed in some way. The field essentially freaks out. It creates an effect in the electromagnetic quantum field. While part of the field gets trapped in the black hole(sorta), the uncertainty principle allows radiationto sometimes exit. Mass is responsible for the modes, so as radiation leaks, it takes some of the mass with it.
@@DeDraconis they do but the event horizon introduces and boundary condition which changes the allowed vibrational modes. Kind of like fretting a guitar to change the string length. This is advanced QFT.
Actually I have a better analogy. First understand that particles are essentially just fancy vibrations in their respective quantum fields. A quantum field is a bit like a drum skin, it has a kind of tension so when you give it some displacement it oscillates around the equilibrium. When you hit a drum you create ripple like waves that travel in all directions across the drum skin. If the drum was very large or even infinite, the waves would travel away just like ripples on a pond. But when the waves hit the edge of the drum, the skin is pinned down, it canno5 vibrate. This is called a boundary condition and the waves will reflect off the boundary and interfere with themselves. Depending on the wavelength of a given way and the size of the drum, some frequencies will interfere with themselves destructively and cancel out while others will have just the right frequency to interfere constructively and form standing waves. This is completely analogous to an electron confined to an atom. The electrostatic attraction between the electron and the nucleus is like the boundary of the drum skin. It restricts which frequencies are allowed for the electron wave, hence atomic energy levels. The event horizon of a black is similar, except it affects ALL the quantum fields at once. It restricts which vibration modes are possible within its vicinity, and that means different particle states are allowed compared to a normal vacuum. Basically, if you put one finger on the drum skin and then hit it, the sound is different, muffled. Your finger is the black hole. The frequencies that make up the sound are the different particles. Roughly speaking.
I knew this intuitively since I first heard the terms " dark energy/ dark matter".
Lot's of us did. We're on the right side of history.
I love having access to all this new information so quickly. I love learning allot more now than I did in school. Thank you.
This has been my own theory on the universe, which is that black holes are recycling machines, breaking down matter into its most basic form and spitting it out back into something that becomes nebulae, stars, star systems, galaxies, and once again black holes.
That’s not what this theory is saying. What you’re describing is exactly what supernova do, though! What this theory is saying is that somehow the matter engulfed in a black hole is converted into energy, not more matter of a different kind.
I just discovered this research, I am not specialist in astrophysics, just interested. Thanks for the information. I tried to have a look at the original papers, they are far above my level of understanding, but I feel this is a key discovery.
this was my first time checking out both your channel & your content; truly I am so grateful that the algorithm allowed me to stumble upon your neck of the RUclips forest because so often I get the feeling that both the algorithm + RUclips are secretly plotting ways to either drive ppl to new even more insane levels of insidiousness by putting only the fringyest of fringe theory-styled programing that while i admit that can be entertaining..., ultimately though it's not a very worthwhile undertaking in most situations & it would become a choice between watching something just to kill some time or being pleasantly surprised by what the algorithm has dished out to me at the just the right time when i'm in just the right kind of receptive headspace so as to actually harken unto your very informative yet at the same time completely entertaining proving that once again deeply intense concepts don't have to be presented in a stark, sterile & mind-numbingly overbearing in tone to the point of feeling as if you don't adhere to what the content creator is providing; well then damned be ye all , the fact you've found a way to remove the pretensions that seem somehow inherent in the subject matter on a molecular level therefore the one that presents these concepts, ideas & theories must also be , well you & a few other amazingly gifted individuals on this platform choose to do these things your own way & at your own pace....Bravo & kudos ! Stumbling onto this video turned a blaise day into a now super-charged & most awesome day ...thanx for that...& i'm looking forward to future uploads¬KEEP UP THE GREAT JOB YOU'RE DOING until next time L8rsk8r🛹😋🤘
blase - turn spellcheck OF while skating away on thin ice uv new day.
Kudos and bravo echoed!
🤩👍 this is a great explanation :) I've read three or four popular-science articles on those two papers, but until now noone was able to summarise it clearly enough for me :) thanks
Talking about cosmology and the future death of the universe is often a depressing topic, but this is actually good news.
If black holes are able to exert this kind of control over the fabric of spacetime, that means a whole lot of wild technologies just became theoretically feasible, up to and possibly including faster-than-light-travel and backwards time travel (both of which are actually the same thing).
My sis and I have always only thought of this as the conclusion, but now that its with us... it almost feels like there should be more it.. this just can't be it
A beautiful conjecture that, if proven, will reshape all we know about the universe.
Black holes... dark energy... I guess it should have been obvious from the start. Feels to me like there are some holes in this as an idea. I'm left with a sentiment of, "ok, but how?" What do you think?
Dark energy is not a consequent of black holes. Blackhole evaporation emits regular energy articles. Not dark energy.
@@arunjoy8151 what if the universe is in the mouth of single toothed. Moron?
There isn't any "but how" - not even remotely. Presumably, they're arguing that because the mass of a black hole depends upon the boundary conditions at infinity and for our universe we don't have asymptotic flatness at infinity but an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime at timelike infinity that this then implies a dark energy content of a black hole. However there is no such calculation and I'm wondering if I may be giving them more credit than they deserve. What it looks like, at least over a superficial reading of the paper, is that this is nothing more than them arguing that if these new exotic dark energy black holes exist, and if they scale up in proportion to the cosmological scale factor then when averaging the dark energy density over sufficiently large volume then the total dark energy density is a constant - but this doesn't tell us very much (and I may not be giving them enough credit in this case).
It seems obvious, if you consider the fabric of spacetime as a sheet stretched by black holes then the sheet between black holes becomes thinner when black holes sink into the fabric of spacetime, and eventually in the space between galaxies have a negative curvature start to blow up itself.
@@arunjoy8151 imagine the fabric of spacetime as a rubber sheet floating on the water above a swimming pool, when you walk on it your feet sink in it but the water below make the rest of the sheets to inflate.
I came up with this idea myself about a year ago or more, though it wasn't as fleshed out and I did not really have theory or evidence to back it up. I think I may have even left some comments on some videos about it the idea of the two being connected.
The exact same thing happened to me, I've been talking about this on discord for the past two years and was laughed at.
I happened to read this Farrah et al. observational paper on the same day as its online publication. I emailed Farrah that evening (never getting no reply) that a more likely theoretical explanation would not be that black holes trap dark energy WITHIN, but rather that they likely RADIATE dark energy outward while absorbing positive energy inward from "splitting the vacuum" near the BH horizon. My theoretical paper, first submitted to ApJ in the last week of February, was nearly identical to the one I published today (4/18/2023) in Journal of Modern Physics (also peer-reviewed), entitled "How Dark Energy Might Be Produced By Black Holes". It attempts to tackle the possible mechanism in a way similar to the Hawking radiation approach, only with the energy sign of the absorbed particle reversed ("positive" rather than "negative"). Accordingly, this would allow ASTROPHYSICAL black holes to GROW in mass-energy while radiating negative energy into the outer vacuum. I refer to this novel mechanism as "black hole dark energy radiation." Naturally, more observational data is necessary to sort these things out, but my approach, based also partly upon Dirac's mathematical formalism and FSC, has a nice symmetry to it. Important advances in physical theories often do. Sometimes the gatekeeper journals are slow to recognize important new ideas. I wonder why? Perhaps E.V. needs to take a rest.🙂
Thanks for this Nice, Simple and Elegant explanation of complex aspects of our universe. I wonder if our scientists ever consider the existence of energy/mater in dimensions that we can’t see. Mathematically any number of dimensions can be modeled but we are trapped into 3 dimensions (or 4th, considering time), so technically we can’t understand what could really be in other potential dimensions. At the most we could only perceive weird things happening in our universe as a consequence of us touching the plane (space) of higher dimensions. I would love to see a video of Dr Ben about other dimensions and how scientists understand this. Congratulations for this channel and for making science available to the general public.
Great comment and very creative. Google string theory which attempts to explain the grand unified theory of physics using up to 11 space dimensions and time dimension
Yes, of course they considered it, almost immediately after 1915 (when Einstein published the finished version of his general relativity theory). It never quite worked in the sense that it never lead to what's today considered THE foremost physics problem: creating a theory that would encompass both general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Thank you for producing this video. 7:00, my understanding is that a neutron star/black hole is not produced by the force of gravity in a supernova, but rather due to implosion. The explosion is extremely powerful, but there is a medium point in the star where the matter just cannot escape fast enough (i.e. explosion), so the forces causes matter inside the medium point i.e. the core, as said, becomes a neutron star or, if more mass, a black hole.
This looks really promising! Never imagined we might figure out dark energy before figuring out dark matter
I agree,, and remain cautiously optimistic. I mean this seems like an actual reasonable explanation for dark energy And let's face it up until now there simply has not been one.
@@MrBendybruce yeah this is the first explanation I’ve see that isn’t very hand-wavey
Now we know the purpose of mankind: to control black holes and stabilize the universe. Either that or just get over it.
dont get too excited tho, some new data shows that maybe the paper that discovered dark energy was made on wrong assumptions
@@levizin917 Wait, you mean the very first observation of red shift?
thank you, Dr. Miles!
Another possibility assumes inflation actually happened. The big bang process spontaneously created black holes where spacetime literally tore open due to the extreme rate of expansion. The energy in the big bang would have been more than enough to create such rips in spacetime. No mass needed, just energy which resides in the extreme curvature of spacetime. As these black holes would have gulped down gargantuan amounts of energy due to the extreme density, dark energy would have gotten a start boost, fueling inflation until the universe was large enough that black holes became limited in their consumption.
Just thinking from the top of my head here, love to hear counter arguments to shoot this hypothesis down.
very well explained. thanks
Thanks. Very interesting. It is perhaps important to keep in mind that light [EM radiation of all types] does add energy density to a black hole. So it would seem that, even if a black hole isn't actively feeding, all the EM radiation out there would still increase it's size / mass. Witness the Kugel blitz. Over billions of years this would (presumably) add up. Of course, other things could be going on, too. I've been thinking a lot lately that the simplest explanation for dark energy ought to have something to do with gravitation, but black holes themselves hadn't entered my mind. It'll be fun to follow this. tavi.
Absolutely, worth thinking about 👍 i don't have a good feel for the amount this would contribute, but it will contribute some part at least
That's interesting because over billions of years the amount of light entering a black hole will be huge so it could be a way to explain this mass gain ,i really encourage you to do some research on that you could find something interesting,for me i spent the last month working on the idea that black holes are related to the expansion of the universe my aim at the start was to see if they were related by trying to get some mesures on hubble's constant but in the way i thought of what if the black holes were resolving matter into energy and that this energy is causing the universe to expand it was exiting but when they released the paper last weak it was a bit disappointing because the idea was no longer new😂
How much, does light pressure (photon-impulse transmission on everything it hits) account for the expansion of the universe?
Isn't vacuum energy just that light pressure around us? ( I recall that idea about two parallel plates being so close that light can only push from the outside of the plates)
The black holes being the engine of space time makes even more sense, when you take the viewpoint from the universe (itself not expanding) where everything inside (galaxies to the rulers) is shrinking.... caused by black holes.
Thank you for this excellent break down. I saw the news and I didn't really understand it. This was a perfect explanation.
Very interesting video which makes a nice complement to Sabine's video that highlights a number of issues with these papers. My main question is who to be sure this is causation not just correlation (which I believe the authors also highlighted as an unresolved issue with their paper) Also, when you say "in a phenomena called red shift" at 2:15 did you not mean a phenomenon, or were there more than 1 phenomena you were meaning to highlight? Thank you
Americans frequently use the incorrect plural ("phenomena") when the singular ought to be used. I gave up trying to fix this.
If black holes contain vacuum energy, doesn't this also help explain what we think is dark matter as well? Could it be that they have way more mass/energy than we initially thought?
Same idea here. If dark energy is not uniformly spread out over all of space, but concentrated within black holes, we can assume that the rate of expansion of space is dependent on distance - further away, less space expansion. It means that stars further away from the black hole have less "work" to do to overcome the expansion of space, hence they will show up as moving faster then though. Perhaps also, the gravitational constant is dependent on distance from the black hole (and time).
it sounds like, this is going to make dark matter and dark energy become understandable things that aren't dark any more (eventually), are the 'same thing' and aren't energy or mass.
Probably, galaxies expand into space and space comes between them to balance the density of space between galaxies. And it shows that we are living in an island universe.
Surely… if these Black Holes are so much larger than the “old Galaxies” justify and the size can be explained by the 68% “missing component”… is this simply further evidence of vaccuum energy/ dark matter… which is being “consumed” by the old black holes… does this make any sense?
As a particle physicist it is logical to see a particle behind a coupling. In a talk Prof. Tiziana di Mateo stated that supermassive black holes stop to grow, which means that also dark matter stops to fall in the black hole necessitating a dark radiation pressure. I assume that this is created by light particles, created in the collision of heavy dark particles as they fall towards the black holes. If they are neutrino like, they could permeate the universe with a dark flow that weakly interacts with dark matter, creating the pressure to accelerate the universe. Dark energy would then be the gravitational force of all the black holes in the universe.
The problem with this idea is that the actualy estimated mass of all black holes together is way too low, but who knows.
I'm calling it. Every black hole is a different universe. We are in a black hole.
That’d be pretty cool. You could also say that a black hole that is growing is the universe in that black hole expanding, or rather the growth of black hole by consuming shit makes the universe grow, and towards the end of the universe the black hole is in and the black holes life time, when it starts collapsing, the universe in it starts dying. That would also probably mean that there would be a infinite loop of universes, all following relatively the same time line and living and dying right after one another.
This is quite a common idea and has been around for some time.
I think it's very possible.
The observable universe would be inside the event horizon.
Scientists calculated all the matter in the observable universe if it were compressed to a black hole would have an event horizon larger than the observable universe.
@Victor Bellew and the key word is 'observable' there - the unobservable universe is thought to be enormously larger than the observable one.
My first attempt at an educational path was in physics and the link between black holes and dark energy makes so much sense and has such a "truthiness" feel to it for me that this does not bode well for the hypothesis. My speculations for what scientists will find on the quantum realm is currently at 100% incorrect compared to chimpanzees randomly hitting yes or no buttons getting at least 50% right. I did find this entertaining and for whatever it is worth it all seems reasonable to me.
Love your photo captions . . . 😂
This result reminds me a lot of Leonard Susskind's ideas about ER=EPR. If the Einstein-Rosen Bridge leading from the event horizon to the singularity is expanding as the black hole ages, then this created spacetime in the neck of the black hole would contain the same vacuum energy as in the rest of the expanding universe. In other words, rather than black holes' increasing mass being the cause of dark energy, might this instead show they share the same cause: vacuum energy?
Likely a cyclic thing. QV feeds dark energy, black holes feed the QV and when all matter is gone, evaporate until the universe is devoid of gravity. Spacetime, without resistance, expands at infinite speed -> new big bang (Penrose conformal cyclic cosmology). rinse, repeat.
The Einstein-Brooklyn bridge leads to Williamsburg
Susskind best idea about ER = EPR (suggested during one of his classes) is to set P equal to 1.
True genius.
English, please.
I have been always wondering how the universe started to expand in the first place, how could there be inflation etc. But if concentrated mass causes more space to form, then it is only natural for it to happen, isn't it? Well, I am probably way over my head here anyway...
❤️Wow I can't believe my ears .
Dr. Miles thanx for such worthy explainations
1. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand?
2. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary?
3. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does?
4. How exactly do numbers exist in this universe for math to do what math does in this universe?
Are we sure the black holes themselves are the source of the universe expanding, or are both just subject to the same process causing both the universe and black holes to grow/expand? Why would one conclude this correlation is causation? I don't see the evidence for jumping to that conclusion.
Precisely!
All the paper showed is that the growth of black holes is correlated to the accelerating expansion of the Universe, measured by redshifting.
To like 5 sigma.
Correlation is not equal to causation.
Correlation between A and B can't discern if A causes B, B causes A, or both A and B are the result of unknown C.
This basic misunderstanding of scientific statistics causes a great deal of chaos once research leaves the Ivory Towers where they keep most all the humans trained in both statistics and the scientific method.
Nowhere is this chaos and confusion worse than in "medical science".
Great explanation; thank you. But has anybody warned you about that black hole behind you?
😱😅
That joke sucks, get it?
If true, I don't think he would know the gravity of his situation.
I'll need to look over the theory and methodology before I'm convinced by the larger cosmic effects, but it's an interesting theory to me because it might help explain how superlative black holes themselves form. We've yet to completely nail down a mechanism that could produce such large black holes, especially when they seem to already be around really early on as well.
My thoughts almost entirely....
Going on this new information, I'm thinking maybe the big bang produced a number of primorial black holes (or better said: rips in spacetime) that were stretched (grown) out of proportion during inflation, fueled by the black holes wolfing down gargantuan amounts of energy which is directly fed into the dark energy field. When inflation settled down, some of the black holes were already Giga solar mass size.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 That may well be, but I'd think if the supermassive black holes were around since inflation, they might have effected the CMB, which already fits our models well.
@@stuartl7761 Perhaps they are (part of) the cause of the tiny fluctuations in the CMB?
it might be due to overuse of cosmical flux capacitors
I think inside all matter is locked in “dark energy” I think black holes vacuum pack this energy and redistribute it. But I also feel like matter in the physical dimension displaces dark energy like ice in a glass- same stuff but in a different modality. So same stuff but taking up a different volume. That’s what my heart tells me anyway 😂
I love your videos, and this is one of the best ever 🙂
Very good explanation and the first I encountered stating that the mechanism itself is not yet known. It's definitely the biggest missing part - to propose a way this actually works. Nevertheless, I now really understand the importance of this research. Thanks to you :)
Most probably, galaxies expand into space and space comes between them to balance the density of space between galaxies. And it shows that we are living in an island universe. It is the real reason for cosmic expansion.
@@smlanka4u space is already at maximum density. A black hole get less dense the more massive it is because it’s diameter scales linearly with mass. The largest black hole ton618 is 370 times less dense than air at sea level and one the size of the universe is about the mass of the universe. It’s another clue.
As our universe is a 4-dimensional object, it's possible that the quantum vacuum is the accumulation of energy over the universe's lifetime, with black holes being the source of energy. If the Quantum Vacuum is timeless, it's also possible that this amount of energy is distributed throughout the universe over its lifetime, the result being a cosmological constant and also an explanation for why dark energy doesn't dilute away as the universe expands. Current theories already strongly indicate that the singularity of a blackhole, is not a place but a point in time, supposedly infinitely far in the future, but more likely just a point in the very, very far future (~10^120 years) if the singularity never shrinks beyond planck length.
@@hugegamer5988, The surface gravity of the larger Black Holes reduces challenging general relativity theory. Therefor some scientists try to reduce their density. The higher density of space near massive object likely causes the gravitational time dialation.
This isn't new. I published this theory back in 2017 on Amazon Kindle. I had this idea since about 2002. It's rather unimportant as compared to my medical research. This theory came out of my work on absolute space-time. Maybe some day l will explain quantum entanglement, uncertainty of and quantum space-time and how they relate to black holes.
So if we could somehow get rid of every single black hole in the universe, the universe would either stop expanding or start shrinking? That seems wierd considering the fact black holes pull stuff in rather than pushing stuff out.
Yes it would, but getting rid of black holes is probably impossible because of how the event horizon works. Even if you somehow had a weapon that could "break" the singularity at the core of a black hole, if you fired it, it wouldn't reach the singularity until the end of the universe.
It doesn't matter if you have a magic reactor that can literally generate endless energy from nothing, powering a beam that could blow up a star with a mass a thousand times greater than the black hole. You can shoot the black hole, sure, but the beam will take quintillions of years to actually reach the singularity. And when it does, it just adds to the black hole's mass, because in a singularity there is literally no difference between mass and energy.
@@dark7element
Whatbif we were somehow able to create the theoretical opposite and make White Holes and pushed them into eachother? Would they not cancel eachother out?
@@noneofyourbusiness2437 Unfortunately, I think that as far as we understand science, the white hole would only succeed in feeding the black hole and making it bigger.
Basically, any way that you combine a black hole and a white hole of equal size, what you end up with is one black hole and one white hole twice as big. It doesn't matter if it's the second black hole or the white hole that you push into the first black hole, the effect is the same. That's assuming white holes are stable - recently physicists have suggested it is more likely that white holes would expel all their mass/energy at once due to the density being infinite. If that's the case, it is highly likely that a white hole was the cause of the Big Bang.
In which case, good news! Our universe is producing billions of new universes. I mean, not so much good news for US, since getting to one of those new universes would require passing through a singularity, but good for whatever lifeforms evolve in those universes, if any.
Solid content
Science-Fiction idea:
Humanity tries to create artificial supermassive whiteholes to counter the expansion of the universe, but creates a world full of new physical laws.
I've got no clue if this would be good. I was just amazed by the topic.
I have a crazy idea. What if Black Holes contract the space around them somehow making each galaxy contracting in relation to the rest of the universe. Wouldn't this give you an expanding universe where pockets of mass(galaxies) stay roughly the same size to each other but shrink in relation to the rest of the universe. Although this wouldn't explain why galaxies with bigger black holes in the middle don't "contract" faster. But hey... It's an idea. O_o
I'm no expert, but if you look back at "bandaid" solutions to old incorrect theories, like the lumineferous aether, dark matter and energy sure look like one. There's something we're not getting.
Yes more galactic phenomena content pls thank you lol
Re the hawking radiation - the growth of both at the same time is probably the imbalance caused by them eating 1/2 of entangled virtual particles.
Another interesting thought: Maybe this reinforces that we're "inside" a black hole.
For quite a few years I've hypothesized this as well that the expansion of the universe is also likely responsible for our direction of time. Entropy being how we reconcile the direction of time but the expansion of the universe is also intrinsically entropy anyway so it would make sense that the expansion/entropy would be affected by gravity. Black holes having an effect on both of these makes sense, furthermore Black Holes would also be linked and reaching back to the Big Bang in the singularity giving birth to the only white hole.
Universe seems to expand in the huge voids between galaxy clusters where almost no regular matter is present... Also interesting to think what really means expanding space(time).... If spacetime is quantized what happens ? New quanta of space are created between the existing ones ? If not do it simply stretches itself ? Dr. Carlo Rovelli in one of his books wrote: "Gravity IS spacetime". That to me has some deep meaning...
Nice summary. Two things I take from this.
k is close to pi... could the error bar on this 3.11 move up?
If the black holes are some how creating DE, then it would imply that there are spots in the universe that aren't expanding evenly. Could this then explain the cosmological crisis?
What would seem to be weird about black holes causing the expansion of the universe would be that it would effectively kill black holes on a universal time scale.
Since black holes require matter to flowing in to continue existing (assuming hawking radiation is actually a thing), by causing the expansion then eventually the distance of matter from black holes it would eventually lead to the black holes evaporating. This would then cause rhe “bounce” to occur or cause nothing to exist.
With an unblemished record of experimental failure to find anything remotely resembling Dark Energy or Dark Matter, we can now confidently link them together with black holes, a cosmic phenomenon the basis of which is pure gravitational math with no consideration to super hot plasma configurations. Cosmologists, full speed ahead!
It’s an exciting result. Looking forward to all the work that will go into trying to disprove this!
hehe
My gf proposes blackholes are like a tampon, super absorbent but results in expansion
Great Summary of black holes, dark energy and their likely linkage from a 'recent conventional wisdom' perspective... however ... I wish more recent Inversion Physics conjectures were also included in this video...
4'40: They called it a dark energy by fear of saying negative gravity. If the big bang made this spacetime, it might as well have made an opposite spacetime (action/reaction principle), interacting with us only by a repulsive gravity.
This would elegantly explain both dark matter (galaxies not being heavier than they look, but compressed by repulsion of the anti-spacetime matter which is around them) and dark energy (obviously, mutually repulsive interactions lead to runaway expansion).
Who has heard of the Janus model?
Finally someone else that doesn’t blindly accept Hawking Radiation. Seriously, if one particle escapes, and one falls in, the black hole just gained matter!
Very good video
So…black holes eat up stars, planets, other galaxies, ………….& then, cosmologically speaking, poops out dark energy. Got it! Great vid & Thanks!
Thank you greatvideo \
l !
Could a point of space in the middle of galaxies/galaxy clusters moving away from each other, in the moment when it's observable universe becomes completely "empty", be an origin of a new big bang? And, as the expanding is accelerating, it could also explain the rapid inflation period after a big bang?
This is not far off from Penrose's "conformal cyclical cosmology" theory.
But if black holes are emitting dark energy, is the "dark energy" continuing out in space outside the galaxy? If so, how fast is it movement out in space? And how come this "wind" from the centre of an galaxy are not blowing out all matter out in the universe at the same time?
Great explanation. After listening twice, I almost feel I understand it.
But it's totally mind-blowing to contemplate.
As mass accumulates, the universe expands as if the black holes' masses is somehow related to the expansion. Possibly even the cause ???
It doesn't seem like there could be a mechanism ... could there be a way to understand it at all?
I imagine this could lead to the expansion of our understanding of physics if it is something that is knowable by humans.
Interesting theory but i have a question for it. How would the universe expands in it's early ages, before any black hole would apear,or even after a few apear in some galaxies ?
Fantastic video!! Has uniformity of dark energy been measured? Is it concentrated around black holes?
It can’t be measured yet… and nobody knows what it is. There are only theories.
This could really help us formulate the theory of quantum gravity better.
Never in a million years...
But dark energy is a force that pushes matter around. Why would black holes, that only attract, be a source of dark energy?
Excellent, thank you
So if I understand it is that for normal and small blackholes their mass is radiated away over time due to quatum fluctuations causing Hawking radiation.
But for super massive black holes, it consumes the quantum fluctuations?
Dear Dr. ben Miles, By the Geometric Chronon Field Theory, if you consider that not only conventional mass generates gravity but also charge does with + generating extra gravity and - generating weak anti-gravity, the electrons that are accelerated to relativistic speeds and escape the galactic pull ,constitute what we call dark energy. On the other hand, the active galaxies accumulate + charge which cause a dark matter effect, e.g. the positively ionized hot gas of the Bullet Cluster. This charge falls into the the super massive BH and causes it to expand beyond the expected value by mainstream physics. See "Electro-gravity via geometric chronon field and on the origin of mass" in ResearchGate. It is much more correct than the peer reviewed version from 2017. Many errors have been corrected in the ResearchGate version and the it is beyond comparison more advanced. Kind regards, Eytan Suchard.
I've been saying for a couple years now that black holes drive expansion. Good to know I'm on the right track! My thought on it was much more simple. I asked this simple question. What do you get when you take an object and accelerate it in every direction, away from everything? The answer was black holes and an expanding universe.
So Blackholes creates energy?
Don't be delusional, Blackholes are not the holes you learned about watching porn 😂
@@netherflux5882 you're an accident
Dr. Miles, would you say there’s some possibility this could support Sir Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclical Cosmology?
While black holes do have an effect on the surrounding space-time, their influence is limited to the regions immediately surrounding them, and they are not thought to be significant contributors to the overall energy of the universe or the accelerating expansion of space.
This is my Recursive Black Hole Universe Hypothesis: a black hole is a time-reversed white-hole, and our singularity was in fact a time-reversed black hole. The “rules” which apply across time (which are generally considered by physicists “fundamental laws” are parameters encoded on the outside boundary, but actually apply across the inside. What happens inside a boundary is that these rules are applied over time, which results in an emerging reality
Perhaps the "number" of brain cells you have can be represented by a Singularity.
Perhaps you might be confused to what a Singularity is. Clearly everything was never singular if it created all the Matter in the Universe.
@@netherflux5882 LMFAO!!!
Clearly it is you who doesn’t understand what a “singularity” is. It’s a metric reduction where general relativity breaks down, not a point of “nothing.” LOL
This is probably the most interesting science video I've ever seen. So, if I understand it correctly, the expanding universe causes black holes to grow. Does this, in turn, cause the universe to grow further, creating a positive feedback loop? Does that mean that eventually the entire observable universe will be swallowed by an ever-growing black hole? That's kinda depressing. But then what causes the expansion of the universe in the first place? And how can black holes convert mass, with positive gravity, into dark energy with essentially negative gravity?
If you were to fall into a black hole, you would see the horizon of the black hole accelerate away from you in all directions just like we see.
I'm attending a talk tomorrow by a Dr. Kevin A. Croker one of the co-authors of the paper concerning the mathematics of cosmological coupling of non-singular black holes
I'm very picky where I find my AstroPhysNews. I think u just made my short list. Great constant. I read a livescience and the synopsis of the paper didn't quite get at where the energy is coming from. There's also an idea I love that a type of Hawking radiation is dark matter. It's just such a long wavelength that it kind of has mass but also doesn't
Cool!
Does this have any impact on the theory for Dark Matter to explain how many galaxies behave? Specifically if these galaxies that need dark matter to explain their behavior have a massive black hole at the center which is the source of Dark Energy, does this also have an impact on how these Galaxies behave?
Hmm interesting, This talks about a hypothesis for the mechanism for the expansion of the universe. But a great question none the less
Well... by E = mc², perhaps, just perhaps, that effect is conveyed by particles. So that may not be too far off.
My goodness, if it's true, that's weird. Black holes are breaking down the matter they consume and converting it into the energy corresponding to the expansion of the universe.
I didn't get anything... If there's energy in the empty space, why wouldn't it cause regular attractive gravity, rather than repulsive dark energy? Whouldn't it has to be negative in value to cause repulsion? Accretion isn't the only process by which black holes accumulate mass, but also mergers between black holes and probably between black holes and neutron stars. If black holes increase their mass simply with the expansion of the universe, without acquiring it from infalling matter or black hole mergers, that would mean that they create mass out of nothing. But even if so, that new mass will only create more attractive gravity, not repulsion. This doesn't make any sense...
The faster you go, the greater your mass becomes as you accelerate towards the speed of light. Maybe black holes achieve something else besides a singularity. Maybe they achieve perpetual speed past the speed of light, which also increases mass.
There is something you did not understand in the GR theory. Your statement "the faster you go, the greater the mass" is intrinsically wrong at the first place.
But how can the universe expand at the same time that black holes do? Shouldn’t the black holes contract while the universe expands? And how can a black hole increase its mass if there’s no matter to eat?
Maybe I’m just high but, couldn’t the black holes just be “eating” spacetime? Like pulling it inside itself. The more it has inside, the more energy it has to pull. All these black holes end up pulling the fabric of spacetime effectively stretching it; like the air of a balloon stretching out the plastic. The holes eat and the universe gets stretchier.
So dark energy escapes from the gravity of a black hole?
This actually changes something about the universe faith instead of just being empty in and freeze in a few googolplex years it's going to be full of light-year wide black holes
So black hole horizons comove with the visible universe boundary, and the radius scales linearly with energy. So in the future we won’t need to worry about the heat death of the universe, it will become harder and harder to avoid ever expanding black holes and it will all end in a Big Gulp.
That's very interesting! Very strong correlation to ignore!
Not to remind that correlation on its own doesn't point to the direction of causation (if there IS causation at all).
But what I'm wondering is regarding the "source" of Dark Energy (DE). From other videos on the subject I understand that DE actually manifests in the vast empty space in between galaxies.
And in the scale of a galaxy or a stellar system it's too weak (compared to gravity) that it can't pull anything apart, only makes galaxies move away from each other (unless perhaps they're in a denser galaxy cluster?).
My point is how would the largest source of gravity (attractive force) inside a galaxy be the source of a repulsive energy outside of galaxies?
There was mass for black holes to consume. They also consumed the light and everything else before it had a chance to reach us 9 billion years later to observe.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
What does create quantum behavior which determines (sic) Heisenberg law, Hawkins radiation, vacuum energy, basically everything that drives the expansion, etc? what is your "expansion energy" that black holes generate out of matter? Dr. Miller, you mentioned that black holes grow in the dead galaxies, but with what??? Where do they get matter to break down into smth as authors of that article hypothesized? The only conclusion here is that this coupling constant shows correlation, and not causation)
>>> “[…] Hubble noticed that light from far away galaxies appears to be stretched to longer wavelengths in a phenomena known as red shift.” ‘PhenomenA’ is plural. ‘Red shift’ is a single ‘PhenomenON’. Thus: “[…] light from far away galaxies appears to be stretched to longer wavelengths in a [phenomenON] known as red shift.”
You don’t say the plural ‘Stadia’ when you mean a single Stadium. In exactly the same way you don’t use the plural ‘Phenomena’ when referring to a single ‘Phenomenon’.
I've been predicting this for the past 2 years.
Remember Frank Tipler's fervent wish that all the energy of the universe will eventually, just before the Big Crunch, end up in a single black hole, where somebody (for reasons, duh) will inevitably spend their time running a simulation of Frank (and everyone else) experiencing eternal cosmic bliss?
Not that that was ever going to happen... but yeah, it looks more and more like that's not going to happen.
You put a balloon with some air in a box slowly remove the air and as the pressure reduces the more the balloon expands. If our universe is a balloon of matter surrounded by nothing it will expand the greater the surface area the faster it expands. That's my theory.
Loved that presentation. Be buoyed in the knowledge that cosmological theories are much like Virginia weather: if you don’t like today’s performance, what til tomorrow, which will likely be entirely different. I have calculated a corrective constant for that.