The tracking of the flaring black hole over more than a year, with multiple telescopes, allowed for an unprecedented level of forensic reconstruction, Lodato notes. "This is the first time that such accurate determination of the star's properties have been done," he says.
It also allowed the researchers to draw some conclusions about the black hole and how much of the star it ultimately consumed. Gezari and her colleagues estimated, based on the properties of the flare and the physical attributes of red-giant cores, that the black hole has a mass of roughly three million suns. (The Milky Way's central supermassive black hole, for comparison, is about four million solar masses.) And by summing up the radiated light from the flaring black hole, the researchers concluded that possibly 10 percent, and perhaps as much as half, of the star ended up being consumed. "A large fraction of the star gets ejected away," Gezari says. "It's a very messy process."
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add CommentThe un-see-able mystery of Black Holes and their hellish gravity induced "Event Horizon" is more intriguing and horrifying than the best Science-Fiction ever dreamed. I wonder if the Black Holes also conceal the very secrets of the creation of the universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, after reading this article, it made me wonder whether or not physicists take into account all the matter that is "eaten" by black holes when they say that "dark" matter has to exist, because there isn't enough matter and energy in the universe to account for its rate of expansion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone know the answer to this?
I know this, Reverend, you sure won't find jesus there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdon't be silly dbtinc! Jesus is everywhere. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wonder if the Black Holes also conceal the very secrets of the creation of the universe?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was kinda wondering something along those same lines. For instance, I was wondering whether it is possible that at the center of the universe is a super massive black hole, if this is possible then would it be possible that the central singularity is infinitely small (and thus infinitely dense) and would eventually swallow the universe if it weren't for the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and thus infinitely big. If these things are possible (which I really have no idea if they are) then I would foresee a point in the distant future where the force of gravity and the force of the universe' expansion from the infinitely dense and infinitely large objects would conflict. What this would mean and what would happen once this occurs, I have no idea, but it sounds cool.
Yes, they're accounted for. Matter that gets eaten doesn't vanish, it's just added to the black hole's mass, which can be measured by it's gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistechnically there is no "center of the universe" (according to Edwin Hubble at least)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdescribed pretty well here "http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe"
Hmmm... now I really got myself thinking. If the "hypothesis" I said above is true and you were to try to model it geometrically using Hawking's fabric of space time where gravity is represented by a "well" or dip in the space time fabric, then this could mean that the universe may not be constantly expanding in the sense that its "edges" are getting farther and farther away from each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllow me to explain, if an infinitely small object (for instance, a singularity) exists and is at the center of the universe, try to imagine what that would look like using Hawking's space-time fabric analogy. It would be as if someone dropped a pebble on the center of a blanket that is suspended in the air, so the center has a dip that affects the rest of the blanket. Except in this scenario, the pebble is infinitely small (thus infinitely dense) so the dip in the middle of the blanket gets constantly and infinitely deeper. But the blanket only has so many threads (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed) so as the dip in the middle gets infinitely deeper the threads on the edges of the blanket constantly get spread thinner and thinner, so to us who are neither at the center of the universe, nor at its very edge, it would appear as if the universe is constantly expanding faster and faster, and due to the effect that gravity has on spactime, two points on opposite ends of the universe would not actually get any further from each other as the universe "expands" but would only appear to be getting farther away from each other due to the massive well that light would have to travel through to get to the other point
Actually, now that I think about it, the points couldn't be perfectly opposite one another because the light wouldn't escape the gravity well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you take my hypothesis into account, it would only appear to us that the whole rest of the universe is expanding at the same rate of acceleration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhich would fool us into believing that any point in the universe could be considered the center of the universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit did make me stop and think for a moment as well. I came to the same conclusion with light not escaping the well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that the matter isn't destroyed I was simply wondering whether scientists had taken all that matter into account, I would think that if they were to try, they would end up with a number that is nowhere close to the actual amount of matter actually contained in th black holes. The only reason I say this is because it is notoriously difficult to detect a black hole, just as it is notoriously difficult to detect exo-planets which I just recently read an article saying that the estimated number of planets that exist in our galaxy alone just skyrocketed to over one per star due to out recent advances in our ability to detect them. If this same scenario were to happen with black holes, then that leaves a whole crapton of matter that exists in the universe that could not possibly be accounted for yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think about it though, according to the current model eventually two points will be expanding away from each other so fast that light will eventually not be capable of catching up, so if you look at that in the context of my proposed model, it is just light getting caught in the gravity well, if you were somehow able to have light that was unaffected by gravity in my model, then the light wouldn't actually be travelling a greater distance than before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, the requirement for galactic dark matter is often derived from mass estimates based on overall luminosity or galaxy rotation velocities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile SMBH mass can reasonably estimated for galaxies in which the velocities of stars proximally orbiting the SMBH can be observed, I don't think there are a lot of those.
Certainly, most stellar mass black holes have not been identified in any galaxy, and their mass cannot have been included in estimates of galactic mass. Same for dwarf stars and planets...
You might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article concludes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...by summing up the radiated light from the flaring black hole, the researchers concluded that possibly 10 percent, and perhaps as much as half, of the star ended up being consumed. "A large fraction of the star gets ejected away," Gezari says. "It's a very messy process.""
It isn't horrifying at all, simple physics. And no...there are no 'secrets' at the center of a blackhole, merely an infinitly dense, infinitly heavy singularity. Period. No romance or horror at all, just interesting science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes...the matter consumed by a black hole, although not per se 'lost information' is taken out of the equation as far as the expansion of the universe goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree there's no romance or horror at the center of a black hole, but there is an important mystery. Massive stars gravitationally collapse at the end of there days: those that are sufficiently massive produce black holes; those that are somewhat less massive produce Neutron stars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCollapsing Neutron stars separate atoms into their space consuming electrons and combine protons and electrons to form neutrons plus neutrinos. The core density of Neutron stars exceeds that of atomic nuclei, and is thought to be composed of quarks and gluons.
The problem with black holes then, is how can so much matter be squeezed into a dimensionless singularity? That's where the theoreticians go to play...
IMO, matter that is ingested into black holes is literally disintegrated; its elementary particles are ejected via relativistic polar jets while the particle's mass energy is retained within the black hole as the local 'curvature' of spacetime, all directed towards a singular point of focus. In this scenario a singularity contains no matter whatsoever.
No secrets? No mysteries? Just "simple" physics? Wow. Wish we could do a poll of scientists, astronomers, physicists, even "simple" mathematicians to see how many find things like the "inside" of black holes to be mysterious; wish they knew the secrets of the Big Bang, and actually understand what an expanding universe is expanding "into"... much like an event horizon but in reverse. Me? I can get "romantic", feel awe, experience many different emotions when seeing pictures of galaxies. When first reading the article, before reading the comments, I wanted to share in my awe, the fact that the star that was ripped apart and at least partly "devoured" 2 billion years ago. I guess I still find light years and the passage of 2 billion years mind boggling if not a bit "mysterious". And finally, with billions of galaxies out there and an average of a "big gulp" once every 10,000 years per galaxy, is the rarity of the observation "simply" that we have just started looking? As in nanoseconds ago against the life spans of stars being "feasted upon"? And am I the only one who finds dark matter and dark energy a bit mysterious and, well, "dark"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou were doing so well - and then you had to bring up the darkness... IMO, the dark stuff is, well, contrived!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you missed it (it wasn't reported in SA, but just last week the findings of two new dark matter research projects were announced to be negative.
The first new research report that failed to find dark matter where it had been expected, outside the galactic disk near the Sun. It concludes that, even if an enormous dark matter halo does envelope the galaxy, it's most likely that the experiments attempting to detect some kind of dark matter on Earth are not likely to succeed.
The official announcement can be found at the European Southern Observatory's (ESO) site:
"Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?", (4-18-12), http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/
Other news articles reporting on this research last week include Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.):
"Survey finds no hint of dark matter near Solar System", (4-19-12), http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-no-hint-of-dark-matter-near-solar-system-1.10494
Science:
"Has Dark Matter Gone Missing?", (4-19-12), http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/has-dark-matter-gone-missing.html?ref=hp
universetoday.com
"The Case of the Missing Dark Matter", (4-18-12), http://www.universetoday.com/94680/the-case-of-the-missing-dark-matter/
The research report has been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) but is now available on an ESO preprint server: Moni-Bidin et al., (2012), “Kinematical and chemical vertical structure of the Galactic thick disk II. A lack of dark matter in the solar neighborhood”, http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1217/eso1217.pdf
The second research report announced last week was the subject of an article posted on ScienceDaily: "Vast Structure of Satellite Galaxies Discovered: Do the Milky Way’s Companions Spell Trouble for Dark Matter?" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425094352.htm
That research report has been accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (in press):
Pawlowski et al., (2012) "The VPOS: a vast polar structure of satellite galaxies, globular clusters and streams around the Milky Way", http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5176
I also recommend another research report recently accepted for publication by the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia: Kroupa, (2012), "The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology", http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546v1
Unfortunately, while your posit is pretty neat-looking, I think you've carried the 2-dimensional metaphor well beyond its capacity to describe a 3-dimensional object. Space itself might or might not have a "fabric" nature, but there seems to be no limit to its "quantity", as galaxies continue to spread out and space remains between them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
The fabric analogy is just that, an analogy. It is simply meant to give you a visualization of the affects that the gravity from an infinitely small and dense object would have on another object, our solar system for example, and the surrounding space time. It is not meant to be taken 100% literally. That being said, there is no reason that a fabric can't be 3 dimensional, I realize that I used it in a 2 dimensional context in my example but that was simply because it is much easier (once again, not necessary though) to imagine in 2 dimensions. In fact, using 3 dimensions would be inadequate, you would need a bare minimum of 4 to get anywhere near an accurate description.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it space that remains between them, or the illusion of space between them cause by having a perspective that is bound to 4 dimensions and from a view point that is affected by the "gravity well".
Since these events create so much disturbance outside the black hole, I wonder if there is a corresponding event inside the black hole. Now, while it seems that we cannot extract information from a black hole, is it possible that this massive input of energy might cause a variation in the quantum generation of virtual particles outside the hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts all relative...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts all relative?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMust be similar to the universe expanding into what surrounds it. Has anyone ever calculated the mass of nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat struck me in the article was the timeframe of the tracked event. One year. Here you have an event which occurred a distance of 2 billion light years from us, and they are measuring changes on the scale of one earth year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read elsewhere that (Super massive?) black holes can form wormholes leading to anywhere or anywhen. Perhaps all wormholes lead to a point before the advent of the big bang and the beginning of time. Since all that existed was a singularity, perhaps everything that goes into a black hole ends up in the singularity. A continuous loop from all times back to pretime in the singularity. Once the mass of the singularity becomes/became critical, the big bang and expansion and time start/started. Then everything and all time would be part of a continuous loop. As matter falls into the holes, time slows, so to an outside observer, the mass appears to be inside the black hole, rather than passing through the wormhole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich came first - the chicken or the egg?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell Quantum mechanics has the answer, if black holes were to gulp every single piece of matter and every tiny pint of energy it would soon have been doing so if there were no dark matter in the space between spaces. all the visible matter is safe till our dark friend is surrounded by its dark counterpart "dark energy". we cant presume fixed distances for a black hole's infinite gravity to suck our guts no matter how many million light years away we live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnow regarding the rate of expansion, constant annihilation of visible matter keeps adding up in the form of dark matter (might sound wierd). Sir Albert Einstien's famous mass energy relation hybridised with QM can rightly show it.
Recent CERN LHC beauty experiment results reduce the probability that particles not predicted by the standard model of particle physics may exist. These include particles predicted by supersymmetry theories, such as dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCERN's "The Bulletin" issue no. 10-11/2012 states:
"An example is the decay of the so-called B(0) (sub s) meson ? a particle made of a bottom anti-quark bound to a strange quark ? into two muons. Theorists have calculated that, in the Standard Model, this type of decay should occur about 3 times in every billion... total decays of the particle. However, if new particles predicted by theories such as supersymmetry exist, the decay could occur much more often. LHCb has shown that the frequency with which a B(sub s) particle decays into a pair of oppositely charged muons is not larger than 4.5 times out of one billion decays, thus very close to the value predicted by the Standard Model. As a consequence, the measurement constrains more severely the existence of new particles outside the Standard Model, at least in the ways predicted so far by theorists."
Please see:
"New physics further constrained by LHCb results", (3-5-12), CERN "The Bulletin",
https://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2012/10/News%20Articles/1429165
Also:
"LHCb experiment squeezes the space for expected new physics", (3-5-12), CERN press release,
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR04.12E.html
"Large Hadron Collider beauty experiment",
http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html
How do you know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! I guess that depends on which way time is flowing or if it exists at all. I love these mind exercises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy Black Holes And We Eat:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.
In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.
Origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by
E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass , and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
The “nearly” all-energy leaves behind some mass formats that begin consolidating by gravity, when it eventually overcomes expansion as the mass fueling the expansion is nearly depleted, becoming very small m multiplied by very large D = E .
B.
Thus the essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.
Gravitation is the “monotheism” and the “ genesis” of the universe. Singularity, at D = 0, is the very brief all-mass pole of the universe. The Big-Bang-inflation did not produce matter or anti-matter. It was the beginning of mass reconversion into energy, of increasing D fueled by decreasing m.
The conjectured gravitons, smallest basic particles, most probably do exist, but must be with mass, and gravitons microclusters must “big-bang” during the on-going expansion at a resolution of their energy-mass superposition.
This is rationally commonsensical, therefore it is scientifically probable.
Inflation started with the whole universe m shattering into fragments that evolved into, became, the galaxy clusters. The clusters expansion is fed at a constant rate by m-fuel. Since expansion accelerates, since the clusters depart from each other at an ever increasing velocity, we learn that the rate of m-to-E reconversion in the universe is constant. The accelerated expansion derives from the ever decreasing m of each cluster.
C.
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes is the detailed procession steps, the evolution details, between physical states ordained for natural selection.
D.
Thus comes to light the universe inspected progressively in greater detail.
Science reveals the universe’s nature-scope and directing drive, followed by technology studying its evolution details-aspects, followed by engineering exploitation of the attained information. This suggests the specific weight, importance, of science, technology and engineering in considering of research or enterprise plans and implementation.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
PS1:
Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
Universe accelerated expansion is per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to different clusters sizes...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
PS2:
The singularity constituents must have been the smallest elementary particles. They may be designated gravitons, but they MUST HAVE MASS. They were born at the energy-mass superposition resolution, together with the fragments that became galaxies clusters.
At expansion D increases, therefore m decreases, which per Newton mandates mass and matter acceleration. This goes on, most probably, at a constant rate of mass-to-energy reconversion, at an energy-mass resolution, mandated by the equality of both sides of the top equation.. And this resolution is, for each graviton, most probably in a format of a minuscule big-bang.
This is a lesser fantasy than the dark matter and energy fantasy. Such mass-energy gravitons may be omnipresent within each galaxies cluster, maintaining each cluster as a primordial Newtonian body and being the fuel-driver of expansion.
DH
"...In this scenario a singularity contains no matter whatsoever."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCute idea. I don't know enough relativity, QM, or math to judge its validity, but it has charm and (to press a metaphor - or pun) a certain beauty.
Thanks - neither do I. To be honest, I think I got the idea from a black hole expert quoted in a science program saying only something like 'there is no matter in a black hole singularity', but I can't remember for sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalking about the center of the universe is like talking about the center of a ball ... to the two-dimensional inhabitants of the surface, it is only an imaginary point, but the mathematics make is pretty simple to define. When you look at the COBE and the implications of the cosmic microawave background you realize that there is an absolute frame of reference defined by the motion that results in the CMB being the same mean temperature in all directions. Too often my understanding of physics is flavored by the simplifications my teachers used to make the path to knowledge smoother (linear or quadratic approximations to tensor calculus solutions).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quote from The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003) by Vasily Yanchilin, page 146: "Near mass all standards of length decrease, sizes of atoms decrease (radii of electron shells decrease). As a result electrons have to rotate around a nucleus faster. However according the general theory of relativity all processes near a mass slow down, periods of rotation of electrons around the nucleus have to increase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe speed of light has the dimensonality m/s and thus according Einstein's theory c decreases there. And so the constant of Planck. This constant has dimensions kg.m(quadr)/s and also then has to decrease near mass. In quantum mechanics frequencies of radiation of atoms are inversely proportional to the value of Planck's constant raised to the third power. Therefore frequencies of radiation of atoms have to increase near large mass. But from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity frequencies of radiation of atoms near a large mass decrease."
So there is inner contradiction in the general theory of relativity. For more see www.janjitso.blogspot.com, esp.on light from Mercurius passing the sun.
Conclusion in the book: black holes do not exist as these are based on the general theory of relativity which is wrong. The words black holes in the article are to be replaced by big masses.
#7 Unfortunately your link is dead
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis site answers some questions posed by posters here & some questions I have wondered about.http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA nice site with simple declarations of consensus perspectives of the universe, with little or no supporting rationale or references. Perfect for those seeking straightforward answers. For those asking questions, however, these present a few conundrums. For example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- How can an infinite universe be completely filled with galaxies?
- "Our universe has no edge or boundary - there is no 'outside' of our universe... It is possible that our universe is part of an infinity of universes..." How can other universes exist if there is nothing outside our own universe?
- "There is no centre of the expansion, the universe is simply expanding at all points. Observers in any galaxy see most of the other galaxies in the universe moving away from them."
If the universal spacetime can be represented as the volume or surface of an inflating balloon, for example, to any observer within universal spacetime it would appear that all distant galaxies are receding away. However, as a geometric form, the sphere would be radially expanding from its geometric center point just as we can externally determine of a balloon. To any internal observer, space within or on the balloon recedes away in all directions - it's quite possible that the actual geometric center point of universal expansion simply cannot be identified without perceiving the universe in its entirety...
It answers some questions for me. Many others remain. For example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay the universe is 15 billion years old. We can see back in time 10 billion years. At the time the light was generated, our place in the universe must have been much closer to the source. Why did the light not pass our area of space billions of years ago or is this part of the equation that astronomers use?
Another good question - I don't know offhand what any consensus explanation might be, but I can proposes one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quick answer is that some of the light did pass by our previous 'area of space' (frame) - we must be detecting some of that light now.
Galaxies generally emit light in all directions. Back when a galaxy was nearer to the Milky Way, light it emitted then directed towards us might have been soon detected (absorbed - no observer necessary) within our galaxy (as it existed at that time). As our galaxy receded away from the ancient light emissions of that other galaxy, we might now detect that ancient light originally emitted in our 'current' direction.
Unfortunately, this scenario raises questions about what took the ancient light so long to get here, or how'd we get 'here' before the ancient light could get 'here', etc., that I can't answer without many other conjectures about ancient light being systematically curved as it propagates through expanding spacetime, etc.
I haven't heard any better explanations, though. Perhaps someone else has...
ok, so i know that planets revolve around stars that revolve around black holes but i never heard of a star going to close to a black hole and being ripped to shreds wouldn't the steady orbit keep it farther away? also, what happened to the planets? were they sucked up too or thrown out in space by the immense destruction of their star? what about light? if a black hole sucks in light wouldn't it be brighter? so many questions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe matter is incorporated into that of the black hole, it doesn't go away. The mass of the object is still the same, just compressed into infinite density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPray, tell: how is matter physically compressed into infinite density? What form of matter supports infinite density?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter that falls into a black hole does count, of course, in estimates of total mass in the universe. But that doesn't change a thing, beyond whether the matter is inside or outside of the black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent estimates of MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects; black holes, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, rogue planets, and the like) places their total mass well below what is needed to explain dark matter.
ALL singularities are, by definition, infinitely small and infinitely dense. That's why they are called "singularities".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy-Mass Poles Of the Universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is a two-poles entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.
Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both energy and mass, even if they are inert mass just one smallest fraction of a second at singularity. All mass formats evolve from gravitons that convert into energy i.e. escape their gravitons clusters to become mass formats in motion, i.e. energy. And they all end up again as mass in a repeat universal singularity.
Universe expansion and re-contraction proceed simultaneously.
Graviton is the elementary particle of the universe. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, inert, with zero distance between all of them. This state is feasible and mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.
The Big Bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang, since the annealing-tempering of singularity and the start of resolution of gravitons. The release of gravitons from their shatters-clusters proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
Gravity is propensity of energy reconversion to mass.
Inflation and expansion are per Newton.
Since the Big Bang galactic clusters are losing mass at constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other. Plain common sense.
A commonsensible conjecture is that the Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) deliver their thrust to other particles and are collected by and stored in black holes at very low energy levels steadily leading to the re-formation of the Universe Singularity, simultaneously with expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
The conjectured implications is that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.
Proposing,
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1640 — Ismael Bullialdus suggests an inverse-square gravitational force law
1684 — Isaac Newton writes down his inverse-square Law of universal gravitation
1758 — Rudjer Josip Boscovich develops his Theory of forces, where gravity can be repulsive on small distances. So according to him strange classical bodies, such as white holes, can exist, which won't allow other bodies to reach their surfaces
1784 — John Michell discusses classical bodies which have escape velocities greater than the speed of light
1795 — Pierre Laplace discusses classical bodies which have escape velocities greater than the speed of light
1798 — Henry Cavendish measures the gravitational constant G
1876 — William Kingdon Clifford suggests that the motion of matter may be due to changes in the geometry of space
1909 — Albert Einstein together with Marcel Grossmann starts to develop a theory which would bind metric tensor gik, which defines a space geometry, with a source of gravity, that is with mass
1910 — Hans Reissner and Gunnar Nordström defines Reissner-Nordström singularity, Hermann Weyl solves special case for a point-body source
1916 — Karl Schwarzschild solves the Einstein vacuum field equations for uncharged spherically-symmetric non-rotating systems
1917 — Paul Ehrenfest gives conditional principle a three dimensional space
1918 — Hans Reissner and Gunnar Nordström solve the Einstein–Maxwell field equations for charged spherically-symmetric non-rotating systems
1918 — Friedrich Kottler gets Schwarzschild solution without Einstein vacuum field equations
1923 — George David Birkhoff proves that the Schwarzschild spacetime geometry is the unique spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein vacuum field equations
1931 — Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar calculates, using special relativity, that a non-rotating body of electron-degenerate matter above a certain limiting mass (at 1.4 solar masses) has no stable solutions.
1939 — Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder calculate the gravitational collapse of a pressure-free homogeneous fluid sphere
1958 — David Finkelstein bajs theorises that the Schwarzschild radius of a black holes is a causality barrier: an event horizon
1963 — Roy Kerr solves the Einstein vacuum field equations for uncharged symmetric rotating systems, deriving the Kerr metric
1964 — Roger Penrose proves that an imploding star will necessarily produce a singularity once it has formed an event horizon
1964 — The first recorded use of the term 'Black Hole' by a journalist Ann Ewing
1965 — Ezra T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash, and Robert Torrence solve the Einstein-Maxwell field equations for charged rotating systems
1967 — Werner Israel presented the proof of the no hair theorem at King's College in London
1967 — John Wheeler helps to popularize the term "black hole"
1968 — Brandon Carter uses Hamilton-Jacobi theory to derive first-order equations of motion for a charged particle moving in the external fields of a Kerr-Newman black hole
1969 — Roger Penrose discusses the Penrose process for the extraction of the spin energy from a Kerr black hole
1969 — Roger Penrose proposes the cosmic censorship hypothesis
1971 — Identification of Cygnus X-1/HDE 226868 as a binary black hole candidate system
1972 — Stephen Hawking proves that the area of a classical black hole's event horizon cannot decrease
1972 — James Bardeen, Brandon Carter, and Stephen Hawking propose four laws of black hole mechanics in analogy with the laws of thermodynamics
1972 — Jacob Bekenstein suggests that black holes have an entropy proportional to their surface area due to information loss effects
1974 — Stephen Hawking applies quantum field theory to black hole spacetimes and shows that black holes will radiate particles with a black-body spectrum which can cause black hole evaporation
1989 — Identification of GS2023+338/V404 Cygni as a binary black hole candidate system
2002 — Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics present evidence for the hypothesis that Sagittarius A* is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy
2002 — NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory identifies double galactic black holes system in merging galaxies NGC 6240
2004 — Further observations by a team from UCLA present even stronger evidence supporting Sagittarius A* as a black hole.
2012 — First visual proof of existence of black-holes. Suvi Gezari's team in John Hopkins University, using the hawaian telescope Pan-STARRS 1, publish images of a supermassive black hole 2.7 million light-years away swallowing a red giant. [1]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1640 — Ismael Bullialdus suggests an inverse-square gravitational force law
1684 — Isaac Newton writes down his inverse-square Law of universal gravitation
1758 — Rudjer Josip Boscovich develops his Theory of forces, where gravity can be repulsive on small distances. So according to him strange classical bodies, such as white holes, can exist, which won't allow other bodies to reach their surfaces
1784 — John Michell discusses classical bodies which have escape velocities greater than the speed of light
1795 — Pierre Laplace discusses classical bodies which have escape velocities greater than the speed of light
1798 — Henry Cavendish measures the gravitational constant G
1876 — William Kingdon Clifford suggests that the motion of matter may be due to changes in the geometry of space
1909 — Albert Einstein together with Marcel Grossmann starts to develop a theory which would bind metric tensor gik, which defines a space geometry, with a source of gravity, that is with mass
1910 — Hans Reissner and Gunnar Nordström defines Reissner-Nordström singularity, Hermann Weyl solves special case for a point-body source
1916 — Karl Schwarzschild solves the Einstein vacuum field equations for uncharged spherically-symmetric non-rotating systems
1917 — Paul Ehrenfest gives conditional principle a three dimensional space
1918 — Hans Reissner and Gunnar Nordström solve the Einstein–Maxwell field equations for charged spherically-symmetric non-rotating systems
1918 — Friedrich Kottler gets Schwarzschild solution without Einstein vacuum field equations
1923 — George David Birkhoff proves that the Schwarzschild spacetime geometry is the unique spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein vacuum field equations
1931 — Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar calculates, using special relativity, that a non-rotating body of electron-degenerate matter above a certain limiting mass (at 1.4 solar masses) has no stable solutions.
1939 — Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder calculate the gravitational collapse of a pressure-free homogeneous fluid sphere
1958 — David Finkelstein bajs theorises that the Schwarzschild radius of a black holes is a causality barrier: an event horizon
1963 — Roy Kerr solves the Einstein vacuum field equations for uncharged symmetric rotating systems, deriving the Kerr metric
1964 — Roger Penrose proves that an imploding star will necessarily produce a singularity once it has formed an event horizon
1964 — The first recorded use of the term 'Black Hole' by a journalist Ann Ewing
1965 — Ezra T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash, and Robert Torrence solve the Einstein-Maxwell field equations for charged rotating systems
1967 — Werner Israel presented the proof of the no hair theorem at King's College in London
1967 — John Wheeler helps to popularize the term "black hole"
1968 — Brandon Carter uses Hamilton-Jacobi theory to derive first-order equations of motion for a charged particle moving in the external fields of a Kerr-Newman black hole
1969 — Roger Penrose discusses the Penrose process for the extraction of the spin energy from a Kerr black hole
1969 — Roger Penrose proposes the cosmic censorship hypothesis
1971 — Identification of Cygnus X-1/HDE 226868 as a binary black hole candidate system
1972 — Stephen Hawking proves that the area of a classical black hole's event horizon cannot decrease
1972 — James Bardeen, Brandon Carter, and Stephen Hawking propose four laws of black hole mechanics in analogy with the laws of thermodynamics
1972 — Jacob Bekenstein suggests that black holes have an entropy proportional to their surface area due to information loss effects
1974 — Stephen Hawking applies quantum field theory to black hole spacetimes and shows that black holes will radiate particles with a black-body spectrum which can cause black hole evaporation
1989 — Identification of GS2023+338/V404 Cygni as a binary black hole candidate system
2002 — Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics present evidence for the hypothesis that Sagittarius A* is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy
2002 — NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory identifies double galactic black holes system in merging galaxies NGC 6240
2004 — Further observations by a team from UCLA present even stronger evidence supporting Sagittarius A* as a black hole.
2012 — First visual proof of existence of black-holes. Suvi Gezari's team in John Hopkins University, using the hawaian telescope Pan-STARRS 1, publish images of a supermassive black hole 2.7 million light-years away swallowing a red giant. [1]