| H. A. M. | Another SciFax Hypothesis | ||||
|
anon. (ancient) The Hubble-Anderson Membrane (H.A.M.) hypothesis proposes that the Hubble limit (H) has properties analogous to the properties of a Black Hole's event horizon. Analogous to Hawking radiation at the "bottom" of space-time, the Hubble Anderson Membrane (HAM) is an inherent property of space-time's "top." There is a small but finite probability that half of a quantum uncertainty particle pair which comes into space-time at the event horizon of a black hole will escape capture by the black hole. This occurs when the escaping particle comes into space-time traveling at the speed of light (C) directly away from the event horizon. This permanent splitting of quantum uncertainty particle pairs requires the highly relativistic environment of a black hole, There is a small but finite probability that half of a quantum uncertainty particle pair which comes into space-time at the Hubble limit of our universe will escape capture by the rapidly expanding Hubble limit. This occurs when the escaping particle comes into space-time traveling at C directly away from the Hubble limit. The Hubble Anderson Membrane (HAM) is an accretion of elementary particles exactly at the Hubble limit, expanding with it, but never entering our universe. It's as inevitable as Hawking radiation, and the gradually increasing mass of the expanding HAM is a guarantee that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate. Where on earth did you get such a strange idea? (anon.) Blame it on the SciFax elist. This list for hard science ideas welcomes freewheeling discussion. "Mac" is a ringleader, and wrote the Black Hole Electron (BHE) hypothesis found elsewhere on this website. My concepts about event horizons were influenced by his lucid explanations in the context of the BHE hypothesis. Specifically blame the active members of SciFax for their oddball questions and speculations. Mitch, Herb, Ray, Rasta and even pedantic Georges are all co-conspirators in this effort. The idea of Black Holes as the "bottom" of our space-time universe comes from reading popular cosmology, particularly the origins of black hole theory. The idea of the Hubble limit as the "top," and the analogous properties which that position implies are original. Jeff There's just one glitch though. In Hawking radiation, the outside entity does not have to be receding at C orthigonally from the surface, because it forms some short distance away from the event horizon, where the escape velocity is slightly less than C. Therefore there is a finite probability of such an entity getting away. However at H, because this is advancing at C, it will surely capture any entity not moving at C orthoganally. Thus the probability of an entity actually achieving this status is zero if only because you cannot have such a precise state of existence according to the uncertainty principle. I therefore suggest that this "shell" of mass cannot actually form. mac "ADVANCING AT C"??? From our point of view we can say that the Hubble Bubble is receding at C, but to say that it's approaching a point "outside" the universe at C is way beyond our ability to predict. Since dimensionality as we know it does not occur outside the Hubble limit, I guarantee that the "velocity" of the Hubble Bubble is different when observed from "outside." In fact, if the outside is dimensionally at right angles to our point of view, then the Hubble Bubble is stationary when viewed from an "outside" point of view and looks a lot like an event horizon! Jeff if pairs formed in this way, then one half would be in real space, and the other half not. Now in the Black Hole situation, the BH shrinks a bit, conserving energy overall. However in the H situation there isn't this option. Either the retained particle increases the mass of the universe, thus defying the law of energy conservation (which requires that the total energy of the material universe be a constant) or the universal mass remains constant, but mass energy effectively has to migrate across the Hubble limit. Since this is information, to do so it would have to exceed C, and that isn't kosher..... mac So we have a hypothetical phenomenon based on another phenomenon predicted by a mathematical model but not yet observed. Somehow this doesn't strike me as significantly concrete. *BUT* we buy it because we don't have anything better. Heck, *I* buy Black Hole electrons, which aren't even main-stream yet. Likewise, since the last 100 years of physics has been based on a "faith" in symmetry, a phenomenon which occurs at the "bottom" of the universe 'should' have an analogous phenomenon occurring at the "top" of the universe. The present model breaks down at both the "inside" of a Black Hole, and the "outside" of the Hubble Bubble. If we're going to continue putting our faith in symmetry, then we 'should' expect complementary phenomena at these interfaces. Jeff So, your idea has merit in that as the recession of H is a one-way process entirely in keeping with the arrow of time, we do NOT need to demand symmetry at that interface, and by a similar reasoning, at the event horizon of a BH as well. mac The symmetry isn't necessary - but it is interesting. We can apply our laws of physics to things inside H and outside an event horizon, so it seems they have some things in common (or in contrast - inside vs outside). You can think of an infinite loop of nested universes - each existing inside a black hole with H as it's their inner event horizon separating them from the universe which contains them. Expanding from the inner Frame of Reference at C, and from the outer Frame of Reference at whatever the expansion rate for that particular black hole is. You could even imagine that the discrepancy between the inflation and the speed of light of the universe arising from the changing expansion of a black holes radius verses the constant speed of light ... key word - you CAN think of it, I wouldn't necessarily suggest it. Mitch Either the retained particle increases the mass of the universe, thus defying the law of energy conservation (which requires that the total energy of the material universe be a constant) or the universal mass remains constant, but mass energy effectively has to migrate across the Hubble limit. Since this is information, to do so it would have to exceed C, and that isn't kosher..... mac Incidentally, the 'law of energy conservation' is one of those totally dogmatic "axioms." There is nothing in ANY reasonable model which says that the Hubble Bubble cannot overtake and include additional matter/energy. We know (can know) *nothing* about what's outside the H. Jeff Hmmmm. So, if the mass energy of the Hubble universe is not constant, we have a conservation law that holds for all of its parts, but not the sum of its parts. That doesn't quite make sense to me.... mac Huh? Hmm... AHA! The conservation law does NOT hold for "all of its parts." The conservation law only holds for closed systems. Is the universe a closed system? Jeff If particles are produced in pairs, I take it you mean neg and pos particles in a pair. IF that is so, then could not the mass of a BH grow if it loses the neg particle? and keeps the pos particle? Herb No, because the two halves are signed only in a space-time vector sense. They both have the same mass. (negative mass is forbidden in real space for some (unknown) reason). Spacetime reversal simply means they have opposite spins and charges. If an electron-positron pair materialises out of the intense gravitational energy gradient available near an event horizon, such that the "negative" electron appears under the event horizon, the positron forms above the event horizon and escapes. Then the BH loses one electron/positron mass energy equivalent, and becomes one e negative charged. Both mass and charge are conserved in the process, because the mass sum of BH plus positron is the same as it was before the process (the energy is taken from the field, and thus the mass of the BH) and also, the sum of one e plus and one e minus is still zero. mike Now if the particle is NOT traveling EXACTLY perpendicular to the surface of the membrane, OR if the particle is NOT traveling exactly at the speed of light, the membrane will eventually catch up with it. So what (probably minuscule) fraction of all created particles would have these properties? Also, Hawking particle pair creation is directly related to the size of the BH, with the effective temperature inversely related to the radius of the hole. With a radius of H (billions of light years), the visible universe would have an incalculably low temperature leading to virtually NO particle production in the first place! Happy Rasta Going back to mac's description in the Black Hole Electron (BHE) hypothesis, let's look at a couple of important qualities of an event horizon... First off. An event horizon forms when the escape velocity of a given gravitational mass exceeds C. For a quantum BHE, this occurred near the beginning of our universe, when the Gravity constant, G, was much greater than today. When an event horizon forms, the inside becomes "locked" into the instant of formation. Not that an observer inside would notice, but from the inside, /everything/ which continues to occur on the outside happens at that one instant when the event horizon formed. For a BHE this isn't important to our argument, but for a macro object and especially for viewing H as similar to an event horizon, there are 'implications.' Picture a conventional macro Black Hole which has conventional in falling matter and energy. From the /outside/ point of view the mass of the Black Hole increases, the event horizon grows, and the Hole gains other qualities from the ingested substance, like angular momentum and charge. How can this happen if the Black Hole is frozen at the instant the event horizon formed? From the time view of the original Black Hole, it cannot! In fact, the original Black Hole is a truly closed system, cut off by an implacable time barrier. The idea of it growing or gaining charge or changing in any way is preposterous. From the /inside/ point of view. In resolving this apparent contradiction, we gain two new insights into Black Holes. 1) As the event horizon of a Black Hole grows, it grows in layers. Once formed, the original event horizon is frozen in time. When matter or energy falls toward the event horizon, IT NEVER ARRIVES. It becomes trapped within a *larger* event horizon which forms as a result of its arrival. 2) Since additional substance is pulled toward the event horizon at C, but can never reach the previous event horizon, its velocity vector has to run exactly parallel to the previous event horizon. In other words, in forming the next layer of the shell, the in falling substance accelerates to C, and never stops. In his BHE hypothesis, mac kept insisting on treating the mass of a Black Hole as residing in the event horizon, and this bothered me a lot. Now I've come to see that it's not just a mathematical convenience, it's how new in falling substance accretes. Back to your question about the membrane forming from quantum uncertainty pair production. First off, Black Hole temperature is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. Keep in mind that pair production is a quantum uncertainty mechanism, it has nothing to do with temperature. Hawking's "temperature" relates to the radiation due to gravity capture of quantum pair production particles. Since we're dealing with a perfect sphere, the area where pair production takes place increases as the square of the radius, but the gravity gradient driving the half-pair capture mechanism decreases with the radius. So the probability of capture, the temperature, goes down as a direct inverse function; but the area of production goes up as a direct square function. Overall radiation increases even as 'temperature' goes down. But all of that is from our /outside/ point of view! If H is an analog of an event horizon, then from the /inside/ point of view time outside H is moving extremely fast. In fact, accretion of a monumental HAM may have happened almost instantly at the moment H formed. The effects of the HAM then take a long time to propagate at C into the universe, and longer yet to affect the universal expansion rate. Jeff |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2004 Jeff L. Anderson, all rights reserved. |
|||||