Yes, Stephen Hawking Lied To Us All About How Black Holes Decay

Some say that gravity should be a stronger force than it is and some speculate that there may a parallel universe also created in the last Big Bang where the strength of the force went. Who knows?

 

Some say that gravity isn't a force at all.

 

I suppose that dark matter and dark energy, things we know little about could have also been involved in the big bang. Perhaps some unknown law of physics governing those entities caused the big bang when some condition happened. Analogous to a nuclear explosion.

 

And why is this? The energy of a vaccum that must be filled? And in the opposite direction I hope you mean antimatter because there is no reason for matter to be created over antimatter .... is there?

 

Some say that dark matter may cause the universe to contract causing another Big Bang at the end. But right now the universe is expanding faster which makes me wonder if there is some kind of gravitational force out there speeding it up. But this is not my area.

 

Yes, the current view is that there is a force that IS actually accelerating the expansion of the universe.

There is clearly not enough mass in the universe for gravity to overcome that force except for cases where the objects are "close" to each other - like Andromeda galaxy is "close" to the Milkey Way.

There are galaxies that are moving toward our Milky Way, but will never get here due to expansion - because expansion is faster than their speed toward us.

Expansion happens with each piece of space. So, each one mile segment is increasing by some really tiny amount.

But, if you string enough of those one mile segments together into a huge distance, that distance can be expanding at faster than the speed of light.

Here's some concrete. At a billion light-years away, the expansion of the Universe is carrying galaxies away from us at about 50 million miles per hour, or about 7% of the speed of light.

The most distant objects we've detected are a little over 13 billion light-years away. Thus they are receding way faster than that.

Over time, objects are departing the distance from which their light will EVER reach earth - and thus at some point those on Earth will no longer be able to detect that they exist.

 

Couple of things: Everything could be moving in an expanding circle, which will sooner or later stop expanding and begin contracting again; a weak force like gravity will still overpower no force at great distances; curves and circles are more 'normal' than straight lines.

Other black holes could be forcing each other apart, and taking all the other matter with them as they recede from each other; we can't 'see' beyond a certain time horizon, no telling what is 'out there' moving it al around. This could also be in great circles, or orbits as well. There could be lensing effects re gravity and other particles going on in all this at a macro scale, too, raising more complexities.

Maybe what we perceive as 'particles' are really just different 'time zones' interacting with each other. See some of the string theory hand waves for possibilities of this being manifolds warping from one 'string' to several others.

All of that stuff 'moving away' from us may actually be contracting toward something else, and it's us that are moving away, sort of 'anti-Doppler shifts' involving anti-matter physics?

Like all mathematical abstractions, Doppler's theories are only valid for short spaces, and not applicable on a macro or quantum scale, like a lot of engineering physics and chemistry is.

 

I am not a scientist, but I am very good at logical analysis, & I'd say, (disclaimer) BASED SOLELY ON the EPISODES of the TV SHOW, HOW TO THINK LIKE A GENIUS, which Hawking spearheaded, that he either was subject to instances of great stupidity OR he was absolutely awful at explaining scientific ideas to a lay audience (in which respect he would have plenty of scientific company). One of the show's 1st episodes was meant to explain time travel. The 1st experiment was intended to show that it is ONLY POSSIBLE to TRAVEL FORWARD IN TIME, NOT BACK. Then there was an experiment meant to show the relation between the force of gravity & the speed of time. Two synchronized, atomic clocks were used; one staying w/ a # of the, "ordinaries (non-scientists who were physical proxies for the home audience)," the other going w/ 1 person from the group up to an observatory that was at a high elevation. After several days, the group at the lower elevation ascended to the observatory to compare clocks. The result was that the clock that had been at higher elevation was slightly ahead of the other, which was said to prove that TIME had MOVED MORE QUICKLY where there had been slightly less gravity.

Again, I'm not saying that this doesn't show SOMETHING, but to TEACH an audience that this means that time moved more quickly for the person on top of the mountain, in a lay-person's understanding (which is who it was intended for) is clearly absurd: to the lay-person, speeding up time means reaching future events prior to those living in unaccelerated time. But as they examined the 2 clocks, as a group, they were clearly all sharing the SAME moment of time; no one was further into the future than anyone else, regardless of what his clock said. What was apparently meant was that physiological/mechanical/atomicprocesses speed up, but that was not how it was described, making it at least poorly explained. But if Hawking et al see no difference between these 2 things, my comment about stupidity comes into play. In fact, if the person in the observatory was actually ahead of the others in time, & he went down to meet them at the bottom of the mountain instead of the reverse, as they reunited in time, you'd have to say that the one who'd experienced the passing of more time would've needed to GO BACKWARDS in time in order to join the others, which Hawking's 1st experiment was meant to show was not possible.

The next experiment was meant to show that the speed of time is relative to its apprehension by the observer, compared to someone else perceiving its movement differently, under different conditions. It attempted to show that someone just outside a black hole, because of the immense gravitational force, would have time slow down for them. Again, this is the equivalent of saying that time moves at different speeds for a mosquito & a sloth which, in the common understanding, is not true; if there is an explosion in the forest, it will affect the sloth, & the mosquito perched upon the sloth, at the same time. Likewise, if a star explodes near a black hole, it will affect the space which is further away (& hence w/ a less affected time-flow) just as it will the black hole & its environs, as opposed to the explosion not existing yet, near the black hole, because that area of, "slow-moving time," is far back in the past, still, long before the nova which is occurring in, "normal," time.

I'm sure I'll hear from some of the scientific partisans that I lack the intelligence to understand the relation between these concepts, to which I reply that the really unintelligent thing is to choose the names of long-understood terms like, "time," &, "travel," to apply to something which one intends to have a meaning different from the common understandings of those words. Someone who abuses their body will likely age more quickly, but there is no necessity for the over-arching concept of, "Time," to come into the explanation. If someone were to find me in a freezer, w/ all my biological processes decelerated to a crawl, it would not seem to be the best way to describe my circumstance as, "having slowed down time," for myself.

 

Masses attract each other. It is demonstrable and measurable. Gravity fits the definition of a force - attraction.

 

Here's what seems to be the best explanation that I've encountered so far: The repulsive gravity of uniform energy (dark energy) where matter is absent or insignificant. Wait long enough in any realm of chaotic fluctuation and very rarely there will be a region of coinciding waves that form a uniform reinforcement that triggers an explosive burst. 35:25-45:45

 

Unlike other forces, which have a force carrier, like photons or electrons, gravity has none. It's force carrier, the graviton, has never been observed in nature despite years of research.

Without a force carrier it's not really a force. It's just a warping of spacetime. It has no quantum component. It's shortening the distance between masses.

 

Brian Greene is so clear in his descriptions. And, I really like how he divides between what we know through testing and the world of theoretical physics where serious thought extends from what we can test today.

Great post!

 

A force carrier is a bundle of energy (quanta) associated with a particular field. Yet it is also conventionally referred to as a particle, just as light energy (photons) are associated with electromagnetic fields. The particle label seems a bit illusory.

Gravity waves were detected in 2015 but are weak. However, waveform implies energy. It's not surprising that the corresponding force carrier, if there is one, has not been detected. Until it is detected, you might be right about the effect being due to warping of space.

 

Another description of the same thing.