Breakthrough In Dark Energy? Here's What The Researchers Have To Say
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- A recent research paper suggests that supermassive black holes can be the source of dark energy. It's a big potential breakthrough in Astronomy. So, here's what the co-author of the study, Dr Chris Pearson from STFC RAL Space, has to say about it.
👉 More about the research:
www.universetoday.com/160139/...
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
00:00 Intro
01:36 How did the paper come together
03:36 Connection between Dark Energy and Black Holes
06:48 Observations behind the research
14:37 Causation or just correlation?
21:20 Redefining what black holes are
25:27 Dark Energy core of a black hole
27:53 Nature of dark energy
35:35 Will Dark Energy tear the Universe apart?
38:30 What's next
40:11 Outro
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Weekly Space Hangout: / @weeklyspacehangout
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
frasercain@gmail.com
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. - Věda a technologie
Congrats to Fraser for being the first in my feed to cover this in depth. I knew the race was on when I saw the headline!
Hah, it's potentially big news. I'm pretty excited. Skeptical, but excited.
Anton will have it in 5 1/2 hours
@@frasercain I'll wait for Sabine Hossenfelder tell me this is wrong and ask me to accept world is boring.
@@verdi2310 meh she sounds too british to me. i prefer pbs spacetime, arvin ash, dnews(nowdays seeker because ppl thought its dick not discovery news), kurzgesagt, minutephysics, minuteaerth, vsauce
Genius. Just hide everything we don't know in the center of black holes. Nobody will find out for a long time. Lol. Might even be correct. What still stays with me is how the entropy content can be constrained by the surface area...
This new age of science communicators on CZcams is unbelievable. I’ve been following Anton petrov and dr Becky for a very long time now. My mind was blown when I learned about this research from them.
I’ve never seen this channel before, but I’m really happy CZcams threw it into my feed. What a great interview with someone who’s actually a part of the research team. I can’t wait to see how this research plays out over the next few years! Also excited to have another great channel to subscribe to!
I have been proposing for years that black holes would emit "negative" energy/mass though virtual particle pair (VPP) splitting. The common belief is that black holes would emit essentially a perfect blackbody radiation via VPP splitting but if you think about it that doesn't make any sense:
For a VPP to be generated, under normal circumstances, it has to cancel itself out. Basically the end result of of the pair popping in and out of existence must equal zero. For that to be possible, each particle in the VPP must be opposite in every property (charge, volocity, spin and even mass) otherwise when they annihilate the end result would be something other than zero. Now, when these V.P.P.s generate on the event horizon of a black hole, the conventional idea is that the partial that is outside of the event horizon escapes the pull of the black hole into the rest of the universe as a random quanta of positive mass/energy (also called Hawking radiation), while the other particle that is within the event horizon falls towards the interior of the black hole causing the black hole to lose mass/energy. But this doesn't actually make much sense. Why would the positively massed particle of the pair always happen to be the particle of the pair that escapes the pull of the black hole, when gravity attracts positive mass/energy? Even more puzzling is, why would the negatively massed particle always (or even ever for that matter) fall into a blackhole? It makes more sense that the positively massed partial would be favored (to an extreme degree) to fall towards the interior of the black hole and that the negatively massed particle would be favored (again, to an extreme degree) to escape and "fall" away from the black hole into the rest of the universe. The end result would be that black holes actually gain positive mass over time (not lose it like it does in conventional Hawking radiation theory) and emits negative mass/energy into the rest of the universe as it does so, causing the rest of the universe to lose mass overtime (thus its ability to hold itself together on large scales weakens). It's almost like oil and water seperating out really.
It's exciting to have some new data that actually backs my theory (as well as other noval) theories like the ones Dr Chris Pearson discusses here.
When the process completes, that would indicate a singularity of positive mass/energy. Which would then suggest a new big bang will come at the lifetime end of every black hole that forms, whose output is proportional to its mass. It kind sounds like black holes are a wave of negative energy expanding outward. That is to say, there is no real negative space, just a boundary of phase exchange. Negative mass would have the property that its perpetually repelled by other anti-massive objects and exhibits inverse gravity, so it would smear across and form a bubble that expands at the rate it consumes normal matter.
Or maybe, the wave is not exchanging, but annihilating mass altogether and beyond the event horizon is actually a bubble of spacetime with zero matter and thus its behavior cant be described like a massive object and any measurements for its mass are a red herring. Is a photon graveyard even a core of positive energy, or is there negative photons too? A black hole is a real hole, whose mass is an approximation of pure empty space of a given volume and when the process completes there will be no matter as it all will have annihilated symmetrically.
Just to ensure in case it wasn't clear, I don't think the guest is saying all our missing dark energy is because of black holes... because it can't be. There are far far too few black holes to account for the actual energy value of dark energy. It can only be a relationship, a 'coupling' as he seemed to call it.
Outstanding interview, fascinating topic that ties into other new observations. Very possibly a subject and conjecture that needs considerable additional scrutiny and pondering. These ideas definitely need to be unboxed.
Guest is so damn smart you can actually see his brain pulsating in his skull against the background. I knew those guys were different but thats just scary smart. 😁
Coming back to this in a few days to rewatch .This is fantastic coverage. Great questions.
Fraser that was a superb interview, thanks for the nutrients for the roses! I hope this dark energy/black hole theory begets many new wonders! ✨
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
DARK ENERGY is dual to DARK MATTER.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity!
The definition of Gaussian negative curvature requires two dual points -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#:~:text=Gaussian%20curvature%20is%20an%20intrinsic,content%20of%20the%20Theorema%20egregium.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hello Fraser! I have a question for your next Question Show regarding this discovery that I hope you can clarify! The moment I read about this discovery last week I wanted to ask you this question. (I added a TLDR version of my question in blurb form at the bottom if you were to repeat it in a video.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION:
It is my understanding that Dark Energy is CAUSING the expansion of the universe at an increasing rate. So I can logically see how the expansion of the universe could be correlated to the size of a Black Hole and that as the universe expands, so does the size of a Black Hole. This explains why super massive black holes are 8-20x bigger than they should be based on the consumption of normal matter alone. OK, no problems so far.
However, to then say that the Black Holes ARE the cause of/explain Dark Energy doesn't make sense to me. If Dark Energy is causing the black holes to grow, then how can black holes also be the cause of Dark Energy (ie. explain the expansion of the universe), when it is the Dark Energy/expansion of the universe that is causing the black holes to grow?
Or if looked at from the other perspective; if black holes explain Dark Energy and they are causing the universe to expand, then how are they making themselves grow? Where is this extra mass/energy coming from?
It seems like a circular loop where:
Dark Energy -> Universe Expands
Universe Expands -> Increases size/mass of Black Hole
Increased size/mass of Black Hole -> increased Dark Energy
Repeat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASANTRIES:
I've only discovered your channel about 2 months ago and I've absolutely devoured your content ever since. I love that you are well versed on a wide range of astronomy topics and always know the right questions to ask your guests. You recognize that your audience is often equally well versed on many of these topics and you don't dumb down your content for the masses (looking at you Neil deGrasse Tyson). It's great that you will even speculate into the future possibilities or implications of a discovery or technology, but even then I feel you are realistic about the timeframes involved. (Unlike some who contend we will be living in a society like in 'The Expanse' in 50 years)
Amazing content! You are extremely well versed, practical, and treat your audience with intelligence! Keep it up!
-Nolan
*** TLDR; If the expansion of the universe is causing black holes to grow, then how can black holes also explain the expansion of the universe, when it is the expansion of the universe that is causing the black holes to grow? It seems circular. ***
Yes, doesn't make much sense really. Just another interesting but unlikely idea that seems to get over sensationalized.
Awesome sauce! Thenks for coming up with this one, Fraser!
Can't wait for the response from Matt (Spcetime) and Sabine.
Sabine's response was swift and lethal, as expected: czcams.com/video/ENGJA1cUe3M/video.html. Hang on, I'm getting my popcorn ;)
Makes me remember of a cushion with buttons, since the layer of cloth is pressing the stuffing, there are parts that pop up. Like this happens with the universe and black holes are those buttons pressing down on the fabric of space time, generating at the same time expansion on a bigger scale that a star can't.
Fantastic questions, great interview...
Hmm, I understood (or at least I could accommodate) all the parts I'm used to hearing. The new parts, to be honest I couldn't get my head around. But I wish the researchers well in their mission, and hope it will be as significant as you and they do. ⭐
thanks a lot for the great interview and bringing this topic to us from the very source of the research site 👍👌
Great interview! Between DE and DM, I thought we'd get further with DM first. It would be very interesting if this panned out.
Glad to see more long interviews
Great interview. Thank You both.
Wow. The idea that the dark energy source is the black holes and that the impact is 'averaged everywhere' is mind-blowing.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
DARK ENERGY is dual to DARK MATTER.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity!
The definition of Gaussian negative curvature requires two dual points -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#:~:text=Gaussian%20curvature%20is%20an%20intrinsic,content%20of%20the%20Theorema%20egregium.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Terrific interview, well done!
the big question is, if black holes and the QV are linked through expansion, do they have a common source/mechanism or do they self-sustain through interaction?
I had the same question in my comment above. Like what is the mechanism of shunting that expansive vacuum energy from the high pressure, high gravity region of black holes across vast vast distances where dark energy dominates ? Is it indication of wormholes shunting energy through somewhere other than the geometry of normal spacetime ? Is it quantum entanglement of whatever possible force carrying particles that pop up in the proposed deSitter universe at the core of a black hole that affects similar entangled force carrying particles in "empty" space ? I thought Fraser's question about the pressure from clusters of large elliptical galaxies, presumably with very very supermassive black holes in them, not indicating the expansive force that voids at megaparsec scales does, was very astute and telling.
I'm more curious as to why neither you, nor your phone capitalizes the first letter of the first word in a sentence.
@@robertnewhart3547 bECAUSE I don't use a phone for typing comments, and I certainly don't use any ottocorrect. Good ole plain typos from this here boi
@@paulwalsh2344 I think that's because the QV has no dimensions. It just IS everywhere without being anywhere. It has an energy value that is constantly increasing proportionally with the size of the universe. You know what else that sounds like? ENTROPY.
@@paulwalsh2344 black holes are pushing dark energy into the normally closed higher dimensions that Hawking wrote about. That's my guess. It fits with the description of those dimensions being inaccessible except at super high energies. Could be dark energy is unfolding dimension 5 and dark matter, dimension 11 or something like that.
Wonderful interview. My mind is pleasantly boggled.
That was so interesting! You ask great questions. Fascinating. Thanks very much.
Read this story first on slashdot a few days ago, and have been waiting for a video on one of the big channels. Congrats Mr. Cain, awesome video!
Really good interview. Solid questions. Thank you.
So I have an interesting theory: What the big rip and big crunch scenarios both occurred somehow at the same time? I suggest that the edge of the observable universe and the edge of a growing blackhole's event horizon might collide as some point, the moment this happens a new universe is created. It could explain why the universe is so flat and why the creation of the universe occurred in the first place. Each black hole that hits the minimum critical size could trigger a big rip within a certain sphere around it and regular heat death in an area beyond that region. This value would pin down the total mass of our own universe and prevent infinities like our universe being infinitely large and massive but also packed into an extremely small point, which is kind of a bit weird to say the least.
My theoretical paper, published today (4/18/2023) in Journal of Modern Physics, entitled "How Dark Energy Might Be Produced By Black Holes" 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.
I figured this out on my own. Glad science is keeping up with my day dreams.
3:05 Fraser, You ask the journalistic question, "Which came first, the Galaxy, or the Black Hole?" and I believe journalists like to ask astounding and divisive questions, because it is exciting and FORCES the person questioned to make a decision, whether the question is properly placed or not. Sometimes a question can be asked, that is, the words can be formed and sequenced into a cohesive question, whether it is appropriate to ask or not. Just because a question CAN BE ASKED doesn't mean it SHOULD BE ASKED. In some cases, WISDOM, should come into play, in considering a question's merits BEFORE ASKING IT!
Your decisive question does not allow for an alternate solution, THAT MAYBE black holes and galaxies, CO-EVOLVED!!! or had STAGGERED EVOLUTION. Like so many things, just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should! Sometimes the very best question IS THE ONE NOT ASKED. Sometimes the data and structure surrounding a specific circumstance NEED TO MATURE SOME before a certain question should be asked. Sometimes the data is not yet sufficiently revealed to the participants .... Similar to "The FOG-OF-WAR" maybe the data is not yet sufficiently developed.
Oh by the way, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Sometimes it is not what's present in the question that makes the difference but rather the absents that defines the question, only when CORRECTLY ASKED, is the clarity apparent. Obviously the FISH egg comes before the chicken!!!
Super-interesting interview, Fraser!
Very interesting subject and good questions Fraser.
Very interesting research, and interview. Enjoyed watching.
Cool, how exciting. Nice interview.
I'm so excited!! Whether it's correct or not, it is definitely an AMAZING time to be alive and I can't wait to see what we learn in the next few months, not to mention a few years from now!!! Hubble, JWST, Parker probe, new A.I. stuff, the Hamster Dance (for those moments when I gotta let my brain rest or cleaning must be done), so many more "normal" people seem to be interested in a lot more technology and space than even a few years ago it seems, and really smart / wonderful people out there who can tie all of these tools together and really let our knowledge grow by leaps and bounds!!!! I knew it ---- we're going to be in for a hell of a ride I do believe!!! Buckle up, buttercup!! 😁🤯🤓❤️ Funny how we think of black holes as like everything goes in, nothing comes out, BUT then where are we starting to get so much knowledge from and possibly explain a lot of unanswered questions about our universe..... It's all about perspective I guess 😁🧠🌮
it makes me think of the early 20th century when physicist knew they were on the edge of revilutionary discoveries. We are seeing them
@@cdreid9999 We're living the dream! 🤓😁
Does the inside of a black hole have to be infinite density and zero volume in order to restrain light? ie, is it possible to have extremely high density and very small volume, and still prevent light from escaping… say something along the lines of a quark star where matter is compressed to a state of pure quarks? Even in a neutron there is a lot of space.
@@leahdiston827 I'd have to give you my personal guarantee that it is probably a possibility! Although are you referring to it occuring in our universe or the one we just bumped into? 🤔🙃🤓
@@dancingwiththedogsdj I was thinking is it possible in our universe. I mean we are talking black holes in our universe that have zero volume and infinite density. Like could it be the size of a tennis ball with a mass of 3Mo.
Mind bending. Thank you Fraser, thank you Dr Pearson
Intense gravity bends everything -- even our minds!😁
Dr. Becky just did a great review of these papers as well. I truly enjoyed this interview.
Sabine has also weighed in. Neither were impressed.
@@nmccw3245 Yeah, but Dr Becky does not sound as angry about it. :)
@@seancstew - must be the accent.
Love these interviews! Thank you.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
DARK ENERGY is dual to DARK MATTER.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity!
The definition of Gaussian negative curvature requires two dual points -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#:~:text=Gaussian%20curvature%20is%20an%20intrinsic,content%20of%20the%20Theorema%20egregium.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 Totally agree if dark matter is matter and dark energy is energy! Yoda is wise! Yet there somehow often seem to be three on occasion maybe 3+1. Cheers 🍻 ^.^
Interesting! I find it not so difficult to think that black holes grow because of dark energy (kinda feeding them), but how can the dark energy be caused by the black holes' growth? I mean there would be two things growing with time, the amount of dark energy and the masses of the black holes.
I still don't quite get how the dark energy gets from the black hole into the surrounding universe, but I'll be watching all my favorite communicators cover it FOR SURE!
Probably Hawking radiation: quantum-entangled particles with one member inside the event horizon and one side outside resulting in a backdoor that allows the event horizon to be sidestepped.
I am no expert but this is how gravity works but in the opposite direction.
Would not be unfeasible (in my mind) to think the force that counteracts gravity - dark energy - would share similar attributes
My hope is that this is true and contributes to a quantum theory of gravity - was just listening to the BBC Life Scientific podcast where Prof Clifford Johnson talks about Brane Theory and black holes
@@nonomnismoriar9601 Could you give me a link to this specific podcast episode?
And how do the black holes grow while producing dark energy something like 1000 times more than their mass? Doesn't make any sense. Black holes grow over time and dark energy increases over time but are the two linked? Not likely.
@@tonywells6990 Well beyond my knowledge and expertise but I do like to ponder such things...
Perhaps gravity is leaking out across multidimensional space and dark energy does not express itself in the same way within our domain...
Can't wait for more discoveries :)
Hi Fraser, love your work! This fantastic interview prompted me to finally submit a question to your weekly Q&A show: have you been in this business long enough to have interviewed a researcher about a breakthrough that later on went to win a Nobel prize? Thanks!
And don't forget to ask: "Have you been unreasonably skeptical despite interviewing the guy who really knows what he's talking about?"
@@lashamartashvili thats what makes this channel good
Black Holes don't make space. Likely, they absorb space. I guess, western scientists try to make a lot of wrong interpretations to hide the real nature of space. Dark Energy is a wrong interpretation about the movements of space. Most likely, space comes into the observable universe because of the requirement of space.
Great interview!
Much love my Canadian brother!!! 🇨🇦
No clue how you can keep your cool here Fraser, this is an utterly astonishing discovery, and I bet many bubble universe / cosmic landscape theorists feeling snubbed they did not think to check if the other universes weren't outside our universe, but inside.
Yeah I’m so excited I can’t sleep. Mind racing grapples with implications 🤯
Great interview
The most exciting video I seen in ages
Great interview. Thanks guys! The green box is working fine, no need to laugh 😁
I really liked the part of the interview where Dr Pearson expressed the opinion that being wrong is simply part of how science is done. I love seeing really smart people with this kind of thinking. It's inspiring to me! Thank you!
all smart people think like this.
Q, Extremely interesting and exciting
Do galaxy blackholes clustering along the cosmic Web, relate to or drive the voids we see? Or would there be blackholes within the void which don't require matter to drive the void growth of vacuum/dark energy , making them undetectable, unless cmb might indicate something?? Thanks
The way my brain is trying to understand this is by comparing it to vector graphics. I'm imaging a point on a vector line that at small scales has limited influence on the other points around it but as you scale that vector image up (like moving forward in time) more and more points on the vector line find themselves inside the influence of that point of over density. In that way I'm seeing the initial point of over density growing more than expected as the vector image is scaled up.
My biggest skepticism is on the fact we dont have 2 space expansion measurements that agree to even know which one to choose to say is correct.
There is no uniform expansion speeding up over time that we measure. We impose that upon observations tuning instruments to make that assertions.
Super interesting conversation. When I read about this I had serious doubts. After this interview, much less so. Look forward to their future efforts. And where does dark matter fit into this?
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
DARK ENERGY is dual to DARK MATTER.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity!
The definition of Gaussian negative curvature requires two dual points -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#:~:text=Gaussian%20curvature%20is%20an%20intrinsic,content%20of%20the%20Theorema%20egregium.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Nowhere, DM is unrelated.
Speaking of the coupling the way you are saying it makes me think of a ball of rubber bands that is pulling the rest of the fabric around it tight. As that ball of rubber bands is not needed that's when the black hole starts to dissipate but in essence it's acting like a spool to pick up any slack in the "banding" from the center to the outer shell. Kind of like a knot you tie too tight and cannot untie. Some black holes on the other hand may act like a pull knot disappearing when there is no longer a need for the tension to be placed in its local space-time. It's hard for me to put it into words.
Very interesting. I hope Dr. Becky Smethurst posts a video about this, too.
Great stuff.
Not going to lie, I don't see why they did not propose this a long time ago. Between that, and the movement of particles themselves that have energy. The energy that is contained within the movement itself as opposed to the vibration
Hello Frazer and Chris, having just watched your interesting video, the following may be of interest to you both.
I cant say I have given too much thought to black holes, but I have been working on two hypotheses that could be looked on as a single hypothesis. The first one is a radical logical alternative to the standard model of the atom, and the second, which is the last part, is a logical alternative to the rediculous ' Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation ' theory.
In these two hypothese, I proffer an explanation for ' Dark Matter ', ' Dark Energy ', ' Antimatter ', and gravity. I also proffer a logical explanation for a static non expanding universe that has always existed much as it is now, and extends to infinity, as we understand it, together with an alternative explanation for the ' Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ' and ' Redshift '.
I do believe that the content of these hypotheses, may help with your research. I will attach a copy of my latest drafts to an email sent to the email address you have listed.
I would be most grateful if you could let me know that the email reached you both, and also your thoughts on the content. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Good interview with co-author Pearson. This is how important sci findings should be communicated.
Unfortunately, this leaves us still with the unanswered question: What is dark energy ? Neither does it solve the intriguing relation of BHS masses with the mass of the galaxy (or of the bulge), the so called Magorrian relation. So we now have 2 mysteries: How and why is the BH's mass simultaneously related to the mass of the galaxy and to the expansion of the whole universe.
In a September-2022 paper:
Fluid Spacetime a MOND-Based Alternative Perspective on The Problems of Dark Matter Dark Energy and Black Holes. OSP Journal of Physics and Astronomy 3: JPA-3-138.
the authors suggested a relation BHs-dark energy based on rational arguments, without experimental support. It was postulated that dark energy is directly caused by the spacetime fluid emitted from black holes. The origin of such spacetime would be in the nuclear reaction from all the stars in the galaxy.
10:29 “ Think of the expansion of the universe as stretching an elastic band”.
This has to end badly. Either the elastic band breaks or someone let’s go first.
Maybe comparison of BH size to galaxy size for the same red-shift vs such chart for different red-shifts, if there's no correlation both graphs might be expected similar, if differ a lot it would indicate correlation with the Universe expansion (for same galaxy types).
Edit: this comment is regarding the discussed ways to improve correlation certainty
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.
Sabine's opinion of this is the majority opinion as far as I can tell. There is a long long way to go before this paper gets much traction.
Fraser you ask great questions.
Great interview. I’m skeptical to say the least. It sounds like the paper is more ideas than something tangible that we can actually test without a generous number of assumptions.
Thanks Fraser & Dr. Chris, fascinating discussion. Just had to ask Wiki the name of our Supermassive Blackhole mighty matter muncher Sagittarius A* & blows my brain box that it's existence was only confirmed by imaging in May 2022...is that correct?
interresting! no sign's of missing necessity, which is allways a good sign. it picks a thing we know we don't understand, but observe, and applies logic to it. There are so many thesis in physics which aren't necessary to the current theories. the current theories are rock solid, there is no need to make predictions of things we didn't observe yet and most likely never will.
So, to conclude,
while the black holes compress us and dark energy stretch us it is still the same thing?
excellen t interview!
Equalization of pressure is known as repulsion to forward momentum propulsion from repulsion. The only energy in existence is pressure. Two states of thermaldynamics, repulsion, and propulsion. Hydrogen under extreme pressure expands cold resistance into equalization of pressure as helium. Expansion. Black holes are devoid bubbles of thermaldynamics. Pure cold resistance of space itself. Mass occupies space as space itself. Cold resistance is neutralized within mass as repulsion to pressure of forced redirected trajectories of thermaldynamics cycling in resistance. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Basic physics works. Mass occupies space. Space is neutralized in mass as an outward force of pressure known as weight. Table of elements proves hypothesis. Expansion of cold resistance in mass in equalization of pressure. Magnetic fields show repulsion and propulsion. Hydrogen expands under extreme pressure. Atoms repel thermaldynamics outward force of pressure known as weight. More mass, more resistance of repulsion. Spheres are proof of pressure of repulsion throughout space as space itself. Every galaxy has a generator of cold resistance at its core. Atoms are quatum galaxies. Thermaldynamics circling vortex around these bubbles of pure fabric of space itself devoid of thermaldynamics are propulsion and repulsion. Pressure is generated by pure cold resistance. Thermaldynamics occupies space, and resistance is neutralized within. Making the greater mass the weakest point of resistance. Smaller proximity mass is repelled towards the weakest point of resistance. Earth is our greatest neutralized resistance. We are vibrating towards the weakest point of resistance. Mass is equal to resistance within. Magnets show the bonding power of atomic strength of unification of unidirectional flow cycling thermaldynamics in resistance as propulsion and repulsion. Line up the flow, bonding. Reverse it, repulsion. Pressure of forced redirected trajectories of thermaldynamics into cycling circulation patterns of mass as weight or density. Heat loss is decay of pressure being released by contained force fields of cycling. Resistance unequal is heat loss of decay. Pressure of bonding redirected as decay. Ashes blowing in the wind. Mass is magnetic fields of forced pressure cycling circulation patterns of pressure known as weight or density. Density, mass, can't exceed resistance within it. Mass occupies space as a neutralized density of mass. Hydrogen under extreme pressure expands cold resistance into helium. More pressure, more density. Black holes defying physics? Bubbles of pure fabric of space itself devoid of thermaldynamics don't defy physics. Pressure of forced repulsion and propulsion capable of jetting thermaldynamics outward force of pressure. Mass is equal to the pressure of equalization of force. Heat is the cosmic coexistence of pressure as loss. Pressure is the cosmic speed limit of repulsion to forward momentum propulsion from repulsion. Mass occupies space. Exchanging space is exchanging places in forward momentum. We vibrate through space as space itself. We decay by this process. Proximity mass is repelled towards the weakest point of resistance, which is the greater mass of neutralized resistance. Two Universes collided? Density can't exceed pressure of repulsion throughout space. Cold resistance expands thermaldynamics outward as force of pressure known as repulsion to pressure within. Physics 101. Anyone can write a book. Observations are necessary to determine physical properties that make sense of what we observe. Pressure is all force in different degrees of resistance to thermaldynamics pressure. Pressure can't exceed repulsion and propulsion. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Resistance is always equalization to mass. Pressure is the cosmic speed limit in resistance to repulsion. Perpetual motion. Unification of unidirectional flow of thermaldynamics is forced pressure cycling circulation patterns of magnetic fields as mass. Density can't exceed resistance within and without it. Mass is equal to resistance. Space is cold resistance of mass. Space, being stationary cold field of resistance, would repel mass in forward momentum and could jettison thermaldynamics into greater speed as mass decays. Resistance to thermaldynamics pressure is equalization to pressure of forced repulsion redirected trajectories of thermaldynamics reduced distance of forward momentum into cycling circulation patterns of mass.
Just starting on this video, so I do not know if this interview is going in the direction I am going here, but I have for years been thinking that the expansion of the universe would be linked to black holes somehow. I mean if you think about it ... light just follow the curvature of space. If light cannot escape a black hole, does that not infer that space itself cannot escape a black hole? Space is not flowing through the black hole and out the other side but instead space is stuck there ever accumulating. So with 'space' flowing toward black holes, the rest of 'space' must be stretching and the light traveling through that space as it is being stretched ... what happens to that? Would it be red shifted causing the appearance of expansion? I don't know. I am a computer programmer, not an astrophysicist, but I find these things immensely interesting and spend a significant amount of time wondering what could be causing the observations made ... and the whole thing with dark energy 'pushing' galaxies apart just never made sense to me. In my opinion something must be 'pulling', but perhaps not in the sense most people think about it.
Very interesting!
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?
Good interview and very interesting research and finding. I would be careful to make a causal connection though. The mass of the black hole is being measured by measuring the speed of stars orbiting them, but the speed is linked to the force of gravity. There clearly is a link to the expansion of the universe and black growth, but it could be because the force of gravity is increasing. That is universal gravitational constant is not constant. Its increasing with time. As the universe stretches the fabric of space, gravity increases, which increases the amount of (negative) potential energy which corresponding has an increase in positive energy that creates acceleration of the universe. The universe remains energy neutral overall with negative energy balanced by increase in positive energy. Great research though. Big step forward in our understanding coming.
That's *really* exciting.
I think I get the idea of black holes to be "big bang inflation in reverse", and "inflation" being dark energy, and thus a very strange space-time thing.
What I don't get is the way that dark energy inside the black hole affects the universe outside. The analogy with the elastic does not help either. I guess it's hidden behind the horizon of math, until someone find a way to explain it.
Anyway, thanks for the ITW.
The bh is dampening expansion, not causing it. It's why the exponential expansion slowed down.
@@MichelleHell There is no mechanism being proposed for any of this, it just the observation that black hole mass parameters scale as the cosmological scale factor for a particular set of observations. The rate of expansion, as defined by the Hubble parameter, is decreasing down to a small positive constant which implies a constant dark energy density, which is what is being suggested by the paper.
@@kylelochlann5053 by damping I mean it sucks in matter that otherwise would fly apart, which is why the exponential inflation of the early universe slowed down but still increases.
@@MichelleHell I think you're getting the decay of the Inflaton field in the early universe confused with the cosmological constant driving the accelerated expansion.
@@kylelochlann5053 ya I think so too lol
Amazing interview. So, is the "Big Rip" still a possible scenario according to this theory? Even if it's all just scientific theories that may or may not turn out to happen in billions or trillions of years, the "Big Rip" strikes the most fear into my perception of universal existence.
I don't even find the right words to convey how I feel about this. :)
Don't worry! Sir Roger Penrose has amazing news for you! The big rip will give birth to a miriad of new universes! :)
No, absolutely - the team found k=3 and so keeping the DE density a constant.
It could actually mean mean both a big rip and a big crunch are possible at the same time. There would be a point where the event horizon expands into the edge of the universe, that might trigger the creation of a whole new universe. I would need some math to verify my theory, but it could explain why the universe is so flat.
This connection between expansion and black holes has another simple reason that makes this likely to be true. Due to the following axiom, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you can deduce that gravity likely has a counterpart.
If gravity can be explained as an acceleration, and this acceleration is omnidirectional, then you must accept that from all sides space is actually coming towards you. If you then have two gravity sources you must also create expansion of space in between, not just the compression of space wherever the two sources of gravity is.
That would explain why the Hubble constant isn't constant, good work. The universe takes matter and turns it into spacetime. So matter is spacetime as well. We are spacetime, that connects us to the big bang itself. OK, I'll have to think about that for a while.
I feel like he did not answer a very central question here. What is feeding the growth of these supermassive black holes? I get the impression that this data is not new, so I'm assuming this is a mystery that has been around for quite a while. So putting aside the correlation of black holes and dark energy, what is causing these black holes to get larger, and what does it mean for the theorised evaporation of black holes due to hawking radiation?
Maybe I missed it in the video, but what was the understanding of the relationship black holes had with dark energy before these papers? Could black holes be like dark energy sinks?
I don't think there was much, if any, known correlation between them beforehand although there was surely thoughtful questions about it. From what I gather, in my limited knowledge, is this proposal would mean that black holes sort of recombine matter & energy & space(?) into more.. empty space itself. Basically converting stuff back into the fabric of space as a whole and creating the continual expansion of it that's been happening (dark energy). Not from the black hole's localized areas, but evenly back into the universe's empty space as if it is a single entity - like before the big bang when it was all one, but to a lesser degree. Perhaps kinda like displacement of a body of water, when you place something heavy in it, the water expands? Not a great metaphor but it's something.
My simplistic and unprofessional interpretation of it anyway.
I thought this was your best interview/episode ever. Great job and most timely. One question I wish was asked though- I thought there were dark energy clouds detected, floating outside of galaxies, perhaps after collisions, and yet with no discernible black holes in them. How do these clouds relate to this theory of dark energy origins?
Those are dark matter clouds, not dark energy. They're different things.
@@gcewing Oh right, my bad. Good thing Fraser didnt ask then! 😁
@@gcewing I think the calculator monkeys will eventually realize that "dark matter" is a result of a falling off of some local dark energy effect coming from the black hole..... prolly theyll get the idea from this post...
Technically, neither dark matter nor dark energy are detected. Some observations cannot be explained by standard physics and these names are place holders for ideas that could explain those observations.
The quote from PMS is pretty good. It will be interesting to see if this is a blipp or a new revolution.
OK... WOW !... talk about "spooky action at a distance" ! OK from what I gather from this (excellent) interview is that there appears to be a correlation between growth of black holes and acceleration of dark energy over the evolution of the universe.
... but correlation is not causation. I really cannot overcome the leap of imagination of the mechanism for shunting the vacuum energy at the core of a black hole to the dark energy of empty space. Fraser's question about the pressure from clusters of large elliptical galaxies, presumably with very very supermassive black holes in them, not indicating the expansive force that voids at megaparsec scales does, is telling. Like what is the mechanism of shunting that expansive vacuum energy from the high pressure, high gravity region of black holes across vast vast distances where dark energy dominates ? Is it indication of wormholes shunting energy through somewhere other than the geometry of normal spacetime ? Is it quantum entanglement of whatever possible force carrying particles that pop up in the proposed deSitter universe at the core of a black hole that affects similar entangled force carrying particles in "empty" space ?
Like I say, the implications are spooky.
Is the singularity and the need for quantum gravity a parallel to the Black Body problem and the need for quantum EM?
Can the light of a molecule in orbit recolate itself if its wave function collapses by self interferance as a probability wave function? Skipping across/around in zero time whilst also having both locality and nonlocality? It seems like a paradox but also seems like it could be possible at a time/space boundery if they can localize through interference, though i'm not sure they do so probably a just a silly question.
Sorry really fascinated by the idea of black holes sourcing dark energy.
Also maybe they could have a different observation of the cosmic horizon due to spacial curvature and light only travelling in wavelike straight lines through those curves to bring back into focus light not viewed from other gravity wells also could this be a way to view dark matter and why we might not see it?
Many new things to learn about blockhole :-) 27:00 min- new mini universe !
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!
Could it be, much like thermal transfer that the dark energy isn't growing but it is the growing residual of other energies being used or extracted from a composite.?
Just me theory, the energy always exists it is just used accordingly and separated from the whole composition of the combined energies..
So I would say this, with the constant flow of space this may be occurring. So space full of gases and without galaxy would seem to flow slower, but as galaxy form the space between increases and with this the flow itself increases to a maximum constant. The logs in a dam control the flow the more logs the slower the flow to increase the flow take a log away. A river has a constant flow until it reaches a dam or has blockage, and it may be the same concept in space. Just a thought.
Okay so i seem to be missing something here - If all of the DE in the universe is locked up inside SMBH's then how is that same DE driving the overall accellerating expansion of the universe? - it seems to me that for DE to drive expansion it needs to be active in the voids between the galaxies - not locked inside SMBH's - obviously i'm mis-understanding something but what is that? Can anyone enlighten me please................?
I'd be curious how this might have a relationship to the holographic principle and idea that ER = EPR.
Thank - you . ( 2023 / Feb / 22 ) ( 1985 ? I enjoyed reading : " The Light on the Sound " by Somtow P. Sucharitkul )!
Wow Fraser!
I have question on this...
Would this discovery mean that in the end, when all gas, dust and stars are consumed into black holes, there would be no more added momentum in the expansion of the universe, and all those black holes would start to "fall" back, due to their combined gravity, to a "central" point, resulting in a new "big bang" and everything could start allover again? The pulsating universe idea?
The thing in common between the unexpected expansion of black Holes and the unexplained expansion of the universe is the source which I believe is outside of the 4 dimensional time-space we understand. This could be a path forward though.
So he's saying matter goes into the black Holes and they radiate out invisible dark energy?
No, there's no mechanism. It's just an observational correlation.
@@kylelochlann5053Well it's always been speculated that black Holes might truly exist outside of our universe, so why can't they be sucking in matter from other Verses as well as ours?
Doesn't that seem a bit More rational in that it doesn't require much new physics.
This allows layers of galaxies to nest around a single pan dimensional singularity.
In a gist what he's saying is that all dark energy is located at black hole singularities and that all black holes have dark energy, but the the dark energy exerts its force on the universe as a uniform field? Is that correct?
IF i followed this, the universe is expanding (check). The rate of expansion is accelerating (check). The rate of the increase of the acceleration will in time increase? On an exponential growth curve are we still on the flat-ish area before the Knee?
My theory as to where supermassive black hole mass comes from - to debunk:
“Empty” space contains a LOT of potential energy - capable of coughing up matter and antimatter to then spontaneously annihilate, and then absorb the photons from that annihilation. That hidden potential energy has mass according to M=E/c**2. Get that - “empty” space MUST have considerable mass, but we just can’t see it because we are uniformly surrounded by it!!!
Enter a black hole that not only swallows up ordinary mass, but which also gobbles up the energy in “empty” space that also contains mass - probably far more mass than the ordinary visible mass being swallowed up. Of course, once inside the event horizon, Hawking radiation effects will probably separate the potential energy from the space it occupies, leaving a new sort of energyless void surrounding the black hole that no one has yet characterized.
OK, break out the rotten eggs. What have I missed here?
Isn't it postulated our universe was similar to a De Sitter universe before the Big Bang Event? If so could the core of super massive black holes be the precursor to other Big Bang events and therefore creating material additional universes?
This reminds me of Leonard Susskind's ER=EPR conjecture. I watched one of his lectures from Stanford, where he explains the deep connection between entanglement in quantum mechanics and gravity. Specifically a proposed solution to problem of Hawking radiation and the loss of information. Susskind explained that in the case of a worm hole (solution to Einsteins field equation) the throat of the worm hole is growing rapidly. This means that the space inside the black hole grows, as I understand it. Isn't that an interesting analogy? It's almost like dark energy is an effect of the expansion of space-time inside the throat of the worm hole.
It is necessary now to make cosmology a part of school syllabus all over the world. We have missed it when we were school kids.
This would really change the conception of what space/time is if it is fundamentally linked to something that is seen as being almost totally isolated from the rest of the universe like a black hole. In such a way that the structure and composition at the center of a black hole creates a force that can be averaged across the entire universe. Or did I get that wrong, this is kind of mind bending.
Yes, I think this is what drove those herds of theorists that wondered off into the untracked forest of math in higher dimensions.
3+1 dimensional relativity seems to demand a causality lockdown at c, but quantum mechanics has kinda indicated this can't be the whole story, at least since Bell's inequality.
This correlation, if validated, might throw an "experimental' flare up for those M theorists to get their bearings.
That's exciting.
An alternative to black holes to dark energy ratio might be
As time goes on the curvature of spacetime results in light having to travel further into the valleys of black holes and higher to the plateau of voids. Now does this angle make the total distance light travels 2% further or 20% ?… thus the expansion of the universe could be proportional to the depth of the gravity wells. ie: galaxies, clusters, filaments. Also as the voids get larger the light travels closer to the fabric of spacetime as the curvature decreases on the plateaus of the voids which may also result in more exposure to vacuum energy.
if a black gets bigger it does not but if it did then if will fall out of spacetime at some mass imposable the mass is the same as the amount that makes the hole the horizon that's your mass, not the black hole? just thinking how the mass get to the center of the black holes mass if it is infinitely crushed and stretched?
Hi Fraser, thank you for this interview (and all the other work you do). I am, however, puzzled by this apparent contradiction: Usually the Universe is assumed to consist of 4 % standard (baryonic) matter, 22 % dark matter and 74 % dark energy. I have taken away from other videos that the sum of all black holes in a galaxy is usually less than 1% of a galaxy's mass. So, how can less than 1 % of 4 % be "responsible" for 74 % of the universe's mass ?
That's what makes it so surprising. The main observation here is the growth of black holes that perfectly matches the rise in dark energy. Why? Could be a coincidence. Could be a connection.
As far as i know it's 68% energy not mass they said that the black holes contribute to 68% of the energy of the universe wich matchs the previous estimation
@@demoa0414 Hi, well, due to Einstein's E=m*c² mass and energy are equivalent. 68% of 68% result in 46%. That is still a huge difference to less than 1% of 4...5% which is the present "narrative for the mass of black holes in the/our universe. I have no idea, which previous estimation you mean. I also can't remember any statement of Mr. Pearson during the interview relating to this discrepancy.