Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

Their temperature can't be measured so how do you know and what makes you think that they won't get keep getting hotter as more material enter them?

 

Because they also get bigger.

 

Temperature is determined by energy density. The energy density of a black hole is (to a first approximation) the mass divided 4/3 x pi x radius^3 where the radius is that of the event horizon.

The temperature of a black hole is given by 1/(8 x pi x mass). A black hole with the mass of the sun (which would be a rather small one) would have a temperature of 60 billionths of a ºC above absolute zero. Larger black holes are colder. Deep space has a temperature of just under 3ºC above absolute zero (cosmic microwave background) so even a black hole into which no matter falls absorbs energy and therefore mass faster than it emits it.

As the universe expands it also cools, so deep space will eventually be colder than black holes (even very big ones) and then they will start losing mass faster than they gain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_process

 

After all the black holes have evaporated and all the stars have gone out, the universe will be an expanding sea of cold, dead silence in which nothing happens.

Which is exactly what it would look like right now if it were eternal, as proven by the second law of thermodynamics.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

Don't forget that matter itself would degenerate through proton degeneration. Given long enough (and an eternal universe by definition has existed for long enough) everything decays to energy, there would simply be no baryonic matter existing.

[unbeliever]

Don't forget that matter itself would degenerate through proton degeneration. Given long enough (and an eternal universe by definition has existed for long enough) everything decays to energy, there would simply be no baryonic matter existing.

 

Whilst proton decay has yet to be confirmed, it is quite possible that if and when it is we would foresee eventually looking at a proton free universe.

[sutty27]

Because they also get bigger.

 

Temperature is determined by energy density. The energy density of a black hole is (to a first approximation) the mass divided 4/3 x pi x radius^3 where the radius is that of the event horizon.

The temperature of a black hole is given by 1/(8 x pi x mass). A black hole with the mass of the sun (which would be a rather small one) would have a temperature of 60 billionths of a ºC above absolute zero. Larger black holes are colder. Deep space has a temperature of just under 3ºC above absolute zero (cosmic microwave background) so even a black hole into which no matter falls absorbs energy and therefore mass faster than it emits it.

As the universe expands it also cools, so deep space will eventually be colder than black holes (even very big ones) and then they will start losing mass faster than they gain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_process

 

After all the black holes have evaporated and all the stars have gone out, the universe will be an expanding sea of cold, dead silence in which nothing happens.

Which is exactly what it would look like right now if it were eternal, as proven by the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Collider Creates Quark-Gluon Plasma at 4,000,000,000,000 Degrees Celsius.

 

This is the same stuff that apparently existed at the begging of the big bang, and apparently makes up a black hole.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2016 at 12:54 ----------

 

Whilst proton decay has yet to be confirmed, it is quite possible that if and when it is we would foresee eventually looking at a proton free universe.

 

You are assuming that there isn't a mechanism that can reverse this.

 

You claim that all the matter that exists didn't exist before the big bang, which means it was created from nothing. What mechanism can make matter from nothing that wouldn't be able to make matter in a universe that already exists?

Edited May 12, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

Collider Creates Quark-Gluon Plasma at 4,000,000,000,000 Degrees Celsius.

 

This is the same stuff that apparently existed at the begging of the big bang, and apparently makes up a black hole.

 

Black holes are not quark gluon plasma. Neutron stars may be part quark-gluon plasma, so maybe that's what you were thinking of?

 

To make a black hole would require a collision energy of 10^19 GeV, which is about million billion times higher than the LHC. This would require a collider 1000 light years across. The LHC is 5.3 miles across.

 

How is this relevant?

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Black holes are not quark gluon plasma. Neutron stars may be part quark-gluon plasma, so maybe that's what you were thinking of?

 

To make a black hole would require a collision energy of 10^19 GeV, which is about million times higher than the LHC. This would require a collider 1000 light years across. The LHC is 5.3 miles across.

 

How is this relevant?

 

Its theorised that they are, but no one actually knows for sure, yet you claim to know, how do you know when no else else does.

[unbeliever]

You are assuming that there isn't a mechanism that can reverse this.

 

You claim that all the matter that exists didn't exist before the big bang, which means it was created from nothing. What mechanism can make matter from nothing that wouldn't be able to make matter in a universe that already exists?

 

Did you read the wiki page on the big bang?

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2016 at 12:58 ----------

 

Its theorised that they are, but no one actually knows for sure, yet you claim to know, how do you know when no else else does.

 

I didn't say what they are, I said what they're not. They're not quark-gluon plasma. The gravitational forces are known to be strong enough to crush quark-gluon plasma.

You said black holes we're "theorised to be" quark gluon plasma. I was merely pointing out that you got that wrong.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

I didn't say what they are, I said what they're not. They're not quark-gluon plasma. The gravitational forces are known to be strong enough to crush quark-gluon plasma.

You said black holes we're "theorised to be" quark gluon plasma. I was merely pointing out that you got that wrong.

 

How do you know what they are not when know one know what they are.

 

If slamming atoms together makes quark gluon plasma then its not unreasonable to assume that slamming them together under the intense gravitational force found in black hole would revert matter back into quark gluon plasma.

 

If as you say the gravitational forces can crush quark gluon plasma, then a black hole is even closer to what you describe as the begging of the universe which was so hot and energetic that no matter particles could exist.

 

That leaves us with what mechanism allowed non existence to instantaneously turn into something resembling a black hole which then allowed it to expand, cool down and form matter, and why won't this same mechanism do the same with a black hole?

[unbeliever]

How do you know what they are not when know one know what they are.

 

If slamming atoms together makes quark gluon plasma then its not unreasonable to assume that slamming them together under the intense gravitational force found in black hole would revert matter back into quark gluon plasma.

 

 

Crushing matter under a certain force creates neutronium, crush it more and you get fermi liquid, a bit more and you get quark-gluon plasma, any more than that and it collapses to a point.

This is why big dying stars sometimes create black holes and sometimes neutron stars. Depends how big they are. Bigger ones have enough gravity to collapse into black holes, smaller ones make neutron stars.

 

If as you say the gravitational forces can crush quark gluon plasma, then a black hole is even closer to what you describe as the begging of the universe which was so hot and energetic that no matter particles could exist.

 

That leaves us with what mechanism allowed non existence to instantaneously turn into something resembling a black hole which then allowed it to expand, cool down and form matter, and why won't this same mechanism do the same with a black hole?

 

Read the wiki page on the big bang.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

How do you know what they are not when know one know what they are.

We can with some reasonable degree of confidence say that they are not cheese.

We know this because we understand the characteristics of cheese and the level of gravitational pressure in a black hole.

Can you extrapolate from that, or are you going to claim that they can be made from cheese because we can't say what they actually are?