Are black holes made of dark energy?

Are black holes made of dark energy?
Objects like Powehi, the recently imaged supermassive compact object at the center of galaxy M87, might actually be GEODEs. The Powehi GEODE, shown to scale, would be approximately 2/3 the radius of the dark region imaged by the Event Horizon Telescope. This is nearly the same size expected for a black hole. The region containing Dark Energy (green) is slightly larger than a black hole of the same mass. The properties of any crust (purple), if present, depend on the particular GEODE model. Credit: EHT collaboration; NASA/CXC/Villanova University

Two University of Hawaii at Manoa researchers have identified and corrected a subtle error that was made when applying Einstein's equations to model the growth of the universe.

Physicists usually assume that a cosmologically large system, such as the , is insensitive to details of the small systems contained within it. Kevin Croker, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, and Joel Weiner, a faculty member in the Department of Mathematics, have shown that this assumption can fail for the compact objects that remain after the collapse and explosion of very large .

"For 80 years, we've generally operated under the assumption that the universe, in broad strokes, was not affected by the particular details of any small region," said Croker. "It is now clear that general relativity can observably connect collapsed stars—regions the size of Honolulu—to the behavior of the universe as a whole, over a thousand billion billion times larger."

Croker and Weiner demonstrated that the growth rate of the universe can become sensitive to the averaged contribution of such compact objects. Likewise, the objects themselves can become linked to the growth of the universe, gaining or losing energy depending on the objects' compositions. This result is significant since it reveals unexpected connections between cosmological and compact object physics, which in turn leads to many new observational predictions.

One consequence of this study is that the growth rate of the universe provides information about what happens to stars at the end of their lives. Astronomers typically assume that large stars form black holes when they die, but this is not the only possible outcome. In 1966, Erast Gliner, a young physicist at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in Leningrad, proposed an alternative hypothesis that very large stars should collapse into what could now be called Generic Objects of Dark Energy (GEODEs). These appear to be black holes when viewed from the outside but, unlike black holes, they contain Dark Energy instead of a singularity.

In 1998, two independent teams of astronomers discovered that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, consistent with the presence of a uniform contribution of Dark Energy. It was not recognized, however, that GEODEs could contribute in this way. With the corrected formalism, Croker and Weiner showed that if a fraction of the oldest stars collapsed into GEODEs, instead of black holes, their averaged contribution today would naturally produce the required uniform Dark Energy.

The results of this study also apply to the colliding double star systems observable through gravitational waves by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration. In 2016, LIGO announced the first observation of what appeared to be a colliding double black hole system. Such systems were expected to exist, but the pair of objects was unexpectedly heavy—roughly 5 times larger than the black hole masses predicted in computer simulations. Using the corrected formalism, Croker and Weiner considered whether LIGO-Virgo is observing double GEODE collisions, instead of double black hole collisions. They found that GEODEs grow together with the universe during the time leading up to such collisions. When the collisions occur, the resulting GEODE masses become 4 to 8 times larger, in rough agreement with the LIGO-Virgo observations.

Croker and Weiner were careful to separate their theoretical result from observational support of a GEODE scenario, emphasizing that " certainly aren't dead. What we have shown is that if GEODEs do exist, then they can easily give rise to observed phenomena that presently lack convincing explanations. We anticipate numerous other observational consequences of a GEODE scenario, including many ways to exclude it. We've barely begun to scratch the surface."

The study, Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology: I. Formalism, is published in the August 28, 2019 issue of The Astrophysical Journal and is available online.


Explore further

Where in the universe can you find a black hole nursery?

More information: K. S. Croker et al. Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology. I. Formalism, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32da
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Are black holes made of dark energy? (2019, September 10) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-black-holes-dark-energy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5202 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 10, 2019
Croker and Weiner's thesis is nicely explained in the Dark Energy Dialogue: https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

"I expected very little. This was actually very, very good!," writes one viewer. "Down with math!," says another. Can't please everyone.

Sep 10, 2019
The great thing about fictional gravity monsters is they can be whatever you want them to be, imaginary conjecture rules the day.

Sep 10, 2019
"For 80 years, we've generally operated under the assumption that the universe, in broad strokes, was not affected by the particular details of any small region,"


The Mach's principle, broadly stated, says "local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe". The idea is illustrated in the thought experiment (point being that if motion is relative, there should be no difference whether you spin, or whether the universe spins):

You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?


It shouldn't be a surprise that local features in taken aggregate define the universe. It's simply Mach's principle seen from the other end.

Sep 10, 2019
the gist i got was that when models were created for the expansion of the universe, only large scale (physically) objects were used in the creation of the model. Not individual yet extremely active objects like black holes and similar objects. Maybe out of simplification but as the article suggests, probably because at the time, it wasn't believed that such tiny objects would have a net effect on the universe at scale.. They are arguing that such objects do when you consider all of them and the fact that they are not uniformly distributed.

That in itself isn't all to drastic of an idea, basically a refinement of the model that leads to better correlation with observation.

The geode thing is odd though. Not sure I follow their reasoning for such a thing existing. Then again, i'm not a big fan of the idea of dark energy being anything more than a fudge factor to fill in our lack of a complete understanding of gravity and space-time.

Sep 10, 2019
IMO black holes spatially focus a fundamental quantum-gravitational effect, producing visible galactic-scale density waves, which are I suppose are also produced by all normal gravity sources in a less-focused way. This normal quantum-gravitational effect resembles stationary-type waves with cosmological-scale wavelengths. The wave-scale (viewable as an oscillation in G) appears dictated by proton-type nucleon-nucleon spatial fields showing up at around galaxy scale at 100K light-years. A longer-wave cluster-scale effect dictated by proton-electron E/G ratios most evident almost 2K times the galaxy scale. It seems like I just took his idea down to all massive particles years before he ever had a chance to try it on black holes only.

Sep 10, 2019
In one stationary-phase-type quantum-wave example I'm thinking about, two positive spatial peaks with origins close to phase-zero in positive cosine and sine could arise from p+ to p+ (wave-scale is ~100Kly to secondary peak) and p+ to e- (1836 x ~100Kly) would be looking like dark matter distributed over two scales, while e+ to e+ (1836 x 1836 x ~100Kly) E/G force-ratio correlates could show as negative sines in a dark energy type of effect.

Sep 10, 2019
The great thing about fictional gravity monsters is they can be whatever you want them to be, imaginary conjecture rules the day.


They recently imaged the event horizon of one! Tough. Imaginary conjecture would be Earth orbiting Saturn, or comets being rocks blasted off of planets by electric woo.

Sep 10, 2019
They recently imaged the event horizon of one!

Oh, you mean the plasmoid they keep claiming as a black hole? Right...

Sep 10, 2019
The colliding black hole masses are not predicted in computer simulations, the factor 5 is just the average scale over the smallest ones that were supposed to be most frequent on the background of star mass distributions (lower mass stars much more frequent). But the sample size is still small and there is a lot of bias in there. AFAIK the consensus hypothesis are that globular cluster formation, which should drive up black hole masses by having stras and black holes frequently collide, is the most frequent black hole birth place.

What the paper seem to say is that linear perturbation theory, which gives the gravity waves observed by LIGO, is wrong. They redefine a scale independent perturbation theory, which gives a different stress energy tensor. Color me unconvinced.

Sep 10, 2019
ER=EPR

Sep 10, 2019
@Eikka: AFAIK Mach's principle - which is about absolute rotation, not laws - has been shown to be either useless or misleading[ https://en.wikipe...rinciple ]. "... because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made that would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false."

@Darth: Their idea *is* certainly drastic as should be obvious from the article, but their extraordinary claim that would need extraordinary evidence has arguably already failed (see above).

More problems with your comment is that looking up current cosmology in an encyclopedia would show you that dark energy is not "a fudge factor" and that we have an almost complete understanding of gravity and spacetime on cosmological scales. You are just reciting pop pseudoscience, and quite frankly it is wasting our time - and a few minutes of *your* time would learn you current cosmology basics instead.

Sep 10, 2019
Croker and Weiner's thesis is nicely explained in the Dark Energy Dialogue: https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

"I expected very little. This was actually very, very good!," writes one viewer. "Down with math!," says another. Can't please everyone.


Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

https://www.amazo...65094252

Sep 10, 2019
They recently imaged the event horizon of one!

Oh, you mean the plasmoid they keep claiming as a black hole? Right...


Nope. Nobody sane is claiming a black hole is a plasmoid!

Sep 10, 2019
Oh, you mean the plasmoid they keep claiming as a black hole? Right...


How does a plasmoid explain the orbits of the local stars like S2?

Sep 10, 2019
This whole thing was unreadable, but that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rules the terms for engagement of sound scientific discussion.

Sep 10, 2019
This whole thing was unreadable, but that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rules the terms for engagement of sound scientific discussion.


And what would you know about sound scientific discussion, janitor boy?

Sep 10, 2019
This whole thing was unreadable, but that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rules the terms for engagement of sound scientific discussion.


And what would you know about sound scientific discussion, janitor boy?

Left to you, it would include name calling, vulgarity, any number of logical fallacies, and changing subject endlessly, oh and claiming to be right at every turn when the opposite is the case.

Sep 10, 2019
This whole thing was unreadable, but that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rules the terms for engagement of sound scientific discussion.


And what would you know about sound scientific discussion, janitor boy?

Left to you, it would include name calling, vulgarity, any number of logical fallacies, and changing subject endlessly, oh and claiming to be right at every turn when the opposite is the case.


Really woo boy? What logical fallacies? What change of subject? And I am right, and you are wrong. Due to you knowing the square root of zero about any relevant science. After all - I am not the one that believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, or that BHs are some sort of plasmoid woo! Bring some real science to the table, and maybe we can discuss it. I assume that if you were capable of doing that, you'd have already done it.

Sep 10, 2019
Left to you, it would include name calling, vulgarity, any number of logical fallacies, and changing subject endlessly, oh and claiming to be right at every turn when the opposite is the case.


The irony here is delicious.
Name calling? See: Plasma ignoramuses.
Changing the subject? See: Every time I've asked about orbits near SgrA.
Claiming to always be right despite evidence to the contrary? See: Every one of your posts.

Sep 10, 2019
The basic idea is that just as, call it "free" (as in not confined in black holes) dark energy in the cosmos increases with the expansion of space, dark energy black holes also expand, and have the same effect of increasing the dark energy. In other words, metric expansion happens inside black holes, too, and if a few of them are made of dark energy, this can help account for it, and (in this mathematical model) even account for all the dark energy action we see accelerating the expansion of the universe.

They have adduced one possible implication of this; it would account for the larger-than-expected estimate of the masses of the black hole mergers. Unfortunately, these could also be accounted for by simple systematic errors (lack of sensitivity of LIGO).

I'm skeptical. But better relativity mathematicians than I will ever be must evaluate and criticize this hypothesis.

Sep 10, 2019
They have adduced one possible implication of this; it would account for the larger-than-expected estimate of the masses of the black hole mergers. Unfortunately, these could also be accounted for by simple systematic errors (lack of sensitivity of LIGO).

I'm skeptical. But better relativity mathematicians than I will ever be must evaluate and criticize this hypothesis.
.......Castrogiovanni.

Sep 10, 2019
They have adduced one possible implication of this; it would account for the larger-than-expected estimate of the masses of the black hole mergers. Unfortunately, these could also be accounted for by simple systematic errors (lack of sensitivity of LIGO).

I'm skeptical. But better relativity mathematicians than I will ever be must evaluate and criticize this hypothesis.
.......Castrogiovanni.


Nope. I'm better than you, but that isn't saying much. I'll leave it to the experts.

Sep 10, 2019
Stop calling me Albert you F'ing thieving maggots!

Sep 10, 2019
Nope. I'm better than you, but that isn't saying much. I'll leave it to the experts.
.....Schneibo?

Sep 10, 2019
Interesting but...I seem to remember another article, maybe a year 18 months ago, with a similar idea...anyone here confirm that? (Can't remember if it was on physorg though). I recall at the time that some comments doubted the equations did actually follow Friedmann Cosmology and that the T4,4 mass energy tensor had something to do with it.

Sep 10, 2019
Never go full retard.

Sep 10, 2019
Dark energy and expansion exists/happens at the zero weight Gravity space.
Neutron/Dark Matter matter does not.
...
Dark Energy Black holes are a misnomer and do not exist by the definition.

Sep 11, 2019
Blooblahbaboonie that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psychobabble rules the engagement of sound scientific discussion.


And what would you know about sound scientific discussion, janitor boy?

Left to you, it would include name calling, vulgarity, any number of logical fallacies, and changing subject endlessly, oh and claiming to be right at every turn when the opposite is the case.


Really woo boy? What logical fallacies? What change of subject? And I am right, and you are wrong. Due to you knowing the square root of zero about any relevant science. After all - I am not the one that believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, or that BHs are some sort of plasmoid woo! Bring some real science to

Antigoracle socky cant drive, drove into tree once again,(proving yet again he still cant even drive, he can't make it in the climate forums, now showing us his monkey stuff in the astronomy section LOL.. Go Bonobo GO !

Sep 11, 2019
A hole is where something isn't there.

Sep 11, 2019
One hypothesis is that black holes break apart normal matter, eject dark matter as the product, and then dark matter later recombines to form normal matter, which then eventually falls into a black hole, and the whole thing repeats itself in a loop.

The problem is that we can't detect dark matter (other than gravitationally), because dark matter doesn't appear to have an electromagnetic character (that there is perhaps a point where electromagnetism breaks down), and so all of our other methods of detection (other than gravitationally) are redundant because they rely on dark matter having an electromagnetic character.

Personally, I like the idea of a matter recycling system for the entire universe, because otherwise you'd just end up with a universe filled with iron and black holes.

Of course, this is all completely speculative, and so I neither accept nor reject any particular hypothesis or theory on this topic ;)

Sep 11, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 11, 2019
...dark energy is not "a fudge factor" and that we have an almost complete understanding of gravity and spacetime on cosmological scales. You are just reciting pop pseudoscience, and quite frankly it is wasting our time....

That's like saying - We have an almost complete understanding of the elements, so forget about particle physics. Look again, our understanding of gravity works at even smaller scales, yet we know it's wrong or incomplete, if you prefer. Dark energy is worse than a fudge factor, for here they are suggesting that matter is collapsing into dark energy. So, how is using an unexplainable to explain another unexplainable, not pseudoscience.

Sep 11, 2019
@antigoracle.
That's like saying - We have an almost complete understanding of the elements, so forget about particle physics. Look again, our understanding of gravity works at even smaller scales, yet we know it's wrong or incomplete, if you prefer. Dark energy is worse than a fudge factor, for here they are suggesting that matter is collapsing into dark energy. So, how is using an unexplainable to explain another unexplainable, not pseudoscience.
Credit where credit is due! This a very rare occurrence where your "antigoracle" username has posted something cogent and insightful. Keep this up and you may eventually live down your less-than-cogent 'offerings' in the Climate Change related threads. Good luck. :)

Sep 11, 2019
You are just reciting pop pseudoscience, and quite frankly it is wasting our time - and a few minutes of *your* time would learn you current cosmology basics instead.
.....and the "pop pseudoscience" is the reckless claims pushed within the hierarchies of Pop-Cosmology.

All these IMMUTABLE FANTASIES the pseudo-science of Pop-Cosmology keeps pushing with regard to Dark Energy are diametrically in opposition to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson, your brain is a vapid wasteland of fantasy in seeking to void the most enduring laws of distribution of energy as defined by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As far as you're concerned ENTROPY is an Immutable Fantasy that was laid forth by serious scientists looking for REAL answers as to why the Universe functions the way it does.

We realize torbjorn_b_g_larsson that you are serious about the immutable fantasies of present day Pop-Cosmology, such as a Universe without entropy, makes for great entertainment


Sep 11, 2019
Benni
Sep 10, 2019
This whole thing was unreadable, but that's what happens when Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rules the terms for engagement of sound scientific discussion.
-11

Look at this, the Pop-Cosmology cultists on a binge, -11. Benni must be hitting one of the sorest of sore spots with his Comments when he invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the science which disproves dark energy and entropy can exist in the same space alongside one another.

Hey, torbjorn_b_g_larsson, you like to imagine you're such a wizard of smarts, supposing you explain how ENTROPY & Dark Energy can exist side by side in the same space? Uh, oh, a new rush of more Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble on the way from you?

I'll bet you know so little about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that you can't even define Entropy & the conditions under which it exists everywhere (100%) we look in the Universe at a value greater than 0 but less than 1.

Sep 12, 2019
All these IMMUTABLE FANTASIES the pseudo-science of Pop-Cosmology keeps pushing... in opposition to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY... vapid wasteland of fantasy...ENTROPY is an Immutable Fantasy... that you are serious about the immutable fantasies of present day Pop-Cosmology...


Someone needs to buy you a thesaurus. I'm surprised you didn't mention INVERSE SQUARE LAW or differential equations.

Sep 12, 2019

All these IMMUTABLE FANTASIES the pseudo-science of Pop-Cosmology keeps pushing with regard to Dark Energy are diametrically in opposition to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson, your brain is a vapid wasteland of fantasy in seeking to void the most enduring laws of distribution of energy as defined by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As far as you're concerned ENTROPY is an Immutable Fantasy that was laid forth by serious scientists looking for REAL answers as to why the Universe functions the way it does.

We realize torbjorn_b_g_larsson that you are serious about the immutable fantasies of present day Pop-Cosmology, such as a Universe without entropy, makes for great entertainment



No, what is great entertainment is watching a clueless layman such as yourself, pretending to understand science!

Sep 12, 2019
@Da Schneib, Mimath: "The basic idea is that just as, call it "free" (as in not confined in black holes) dark energy in the cosmos increases with the expansion of space, dark energy black holes also expand, and have the same effect of increasing the dark energy." "the T4,4 mass energy tensor had something to do with it."

Yes, these objects would expand, if the stress tensor is redefined according to the paper (which would give no or different gravity waves than those we have already observed).

@Kardano: "One hypothesis is that ...".

None that is published in peer review at a guess, since matter ejection would not happen.

Sep 12, 2019
Wait did Benni just show in the same post that he believes in the 2nd Law but at the same time does not believe in entropy?

Sep 12, 2019
Wait did Benni just show in the same post that he believes in the 2nd Law but at the same time does not believe in entropy?
that was torbjorn_b_g_larsson who said that.

Sep 12, 2019
@torbjorn, why would the gravitational waves be different from what we've seen?

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
what is 1/0?


Sep 14, 2019
Eikka: AFAIK Mach's principle - which is about absolute rotation, not laws - has been shown to be either useless or misleading


That's missing the point.

If the large scale structure of the universe defines the local laws of physics - which stands to reason since we can't assume anything outside of the universe defining it - then it simply stands to reason that the aggregate of all the local features defines how the universe works.

After all, it's only the same statement done in slightly different ways. The aggregate of the local features is the large scale structure of the universe.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more