Black Holes And Antimatter

There was recently an article in the news about black holes. A black hole is an extremely concentrated mass, bound by it's tremendous gravity. The gravity of a black hole is so intense that nothing can ever escape it, supposedly not even light. Hence the name.

There is believed to be a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In recent years, black holes have become a staple of space science.

But yet, it has been found that black holes actually do decay over time, and also emit radiation. This decay can only mean that matter is somehow leaving the black hole. How can we account for this?

As it turns out, my cosmological theory offers a relatively simple explanation for why black holes decay over time. In the posting, "The Beginning Of The Universe", I explained how charge migration took place in the original two-dimensional sheet of space, before the bonds disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions leaving us with the one-dimensional strings thrown out across the universe that we today know as matter.

In this primeval charge migration, one side of the sheet became the negative side, and the other the positive side. The negative side formed electrons when one of the two dimensional bonds disintegrated, and the positive side formed positrons which are the antimatter equivalent of electrons.

This charge migration took place because the universe seeks the condition of lowest tension, since this is also the lowest energy state. This seeking of the lowest energy state is the reason that a ball will fall to the ground when you drop it, it takes less energy for it to fall that it does to oppose gravity to keep it in the air.

There is tension in space between the checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges that compose space. But charge migration, to bring about a state of lower tension, does not take place because there are so many dimensions of space. It was much easier for it to take place in the original sheet of space because there were only two dimensions.

Black holes are unlike anything else in the universe. The movement of matter is governed by electromagnetism. The electron repulsion of the negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of atoms is what causes matter to move when force is exerted on it by other matter. This same electron repulsion is what prevents objects on the surface of the earth from falling to the earth's center of gravity. Atoms are almost entirely empty space, but the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms composing the earth and the atoms in the outer shells of objects on the earth's surface repel one another, this is because like charges repel and all electrons are negatively-charged.

When matter is brought together, the electric charges do not move at all. Negative remain negative, and positive remains positive. It is matter which moves to accommodate these electromagnetic forces.

But the inside of a black hole is completely different from anything else in the universe. Not even the centers of stars, where smaller atoms are crushed together into larger atoms, are remotely like the gravitational stress that matter undergoes in a black hole. At least atoms can move in the centers of stars, so that they can be combined together.

If matter is subject to extreme stresses, unlike anything else in the universe, meaning that like charges are being forced together by the unfathomable gravity. And if it is possible for charges to actually migrate within matter in a way similar to the original sheet of space, which became what we know as matter, as described in "The Beginning Of The Universe", why couldn't charges within black holes simply migrate to relieve the extreme stresses?

My cosmological theory explains how the nature of the universe first seeks charge balance, and secondly seeks the lowest energy level. This is explained in the posting "Gamma Ray Bursts". The universe could drastically lower it's energy level by minimizing the forces working against each other inside a black hole by simply having negative and positive charges rearrange themselves.

Since the matter itself cannot possibly move, this would involve the negative and positive charges trading places. As long as the overall charge balance of the universe remains zero, this would not be breaking any fundamental rules.

But then, if we have charges moving within matter, this means that matter will sometimes be changing into antimatter. We know that when matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Both space and matter, as well as antimatter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. When matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate as they rearrange their charge arrangement back into that of space. The energy that was holding their bonds together is released.

So, there we have it. This simple scenario explains both why black holes eventually decay, and why they release energy. Decay would seem impossible with the gravity so extreme that no matter can possibly escape. But the matter isn't actually escaping the black hole into space, it is mutually annihilating as matter and antimatter.

One complication that is pointed out about the decay of Black Holes, and the corresponding release of radiation, is the so-called "information paradox". If a star condensed by gravity to ultimately form a black hole, and there must have been information in that star concerning it's structure and the structures of it's atoms, then what happened to that information when the black hole decays? We know that information can never disappear altogether.

But my way of explaining it here leaves no such missing information. The black hole contained all of the information that was in the star. The decay of a black hole, until nothing remains but empty space, is a kind of a long and slow matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of matter. But just as all of the information that was in the matter and antimatter is not lost, but is contained in the burst of energy that is released by the reaction, so the radiation that is released by the slow decay of the black hole also contains all of the information that was in the matter of the black hole, and the star before it. This radiation released by a decaying black hole is sometimes referred to as "Hawking Radiation".

My theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it. Not only is all of the information that was in the black hole and the star before it included in the radiation that escapes a black hole, all of the energy that was in the atoms of the matter of the star and black hole escapes too.

Remember that space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Energy ultimately opposes the rules of the basic charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Energy makes it possible to overcome the repulsion between like charges so that matter can be brought into being. The original infinitesimal electric charges still exist but negative charges can be cobbled together to form electrons and positive charges to form protons. But this joining together of like charges involves both energy and information, which is actually the same thing.

By the way, this also neatly explains what gravity is. Not only are the sum of negative and positive charges in the universe equal, the two basic rules about the attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges is also equal. Energy overcomes the repulsion of opposite charges, so that matter which is a concentration of charges can exist. But this leaves an imbalance between the two basic rules of electric charges, so that the attractive force is more prevalent than the repulsive force. This leaves us with the net attractive force between matter that we refer to as gravity.

When a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation takes place, or when a black hole decays, the radiation that is released contains all of the energy and information that the matter had contained. The energy and information radiates away into space, and no information is lost.

Remember that, in this cosmological theory, electromagnetic radiation is a displacement in the pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges that composes space. This pattern of displacement radiates out across space as a wave which reflects the nature of the information which produced it. This is what energy does in matter, it displaces the usual alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges so that charged particles (actually strings) such as nucleons and electrons can be cobbled together from like charges.

After the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter, or as a black hole decays, the displacement of electric charges due to energy remains exactly the same, except that now it is dispersed across a wide area of space instead of concentrated in matter. The matter, antimatter and, black hole seem to disappear, but no energy or information at all is lost.

I can think of no better, or indeed any other, explanation of how a black hole could decay.

Remember that in physics, there is an age-old principle known as "Occam's Razor" which stipulates that the simplest explanation for something us usually the best explanation. This may not be true when dealing with people, but it does seem to be the case with physics. This shows from yet another perspective how this model of the universe must be correct.

THE MATTER CYCLE

There is a close relationship between the quantum level and the astronomical levels of reality that I have never before seen pointed out, and which provides more proof of my cosmological theory that both space and matter are composed of infinitesimal electric charges, that space is an alternating checkerboard of these charges and that matter is a concentration of the charges other than the checkerboard pattern of space.

I also have a physics and astronomy blog. The difference between cosmology and ordinary physics and astronomy is that if a concept can be explained without involving the additional dimensions of space in my cosmology theory that we cannot see or the composition of space and matter as the fundamental negative and positive electric charges, then it gets classified as ordinary physics or astronomy.

Have you ever questioned why books tend to depict neutrons and protons, in the nucleus of atoms, as neat little spheres? Planets and stars are spherical in form, but that is due to gravity creating a form with the lowest energy state. There is no such force at the level of the atomic nucleus that would dictate that protons and neutrons had to be spherical.

I find that, if we can get away from thinking of nucleons, as protons and neutrons are referred to, as spherical in form, it helps to explain the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. Nucleons are actually made of mixed charges, composed of smaller particles called quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2/3, and a down quark has a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks and a down quark have a net charge of + 1, and forms a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark has a neutral charge, and forms a neutron.

In my theory of binding energy, when smaller atoms in stars are crunched together in the center of the star to form larger atoms, the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star applies pressure on the nucleons so that the mixed negative and positive charges are displaced so that they face off, and so the nucleus can hold together. I described this in "The Nature Of Binding Energy", on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .

Remember that at the nuclear scale, there is really no such thing as energy inefficiency. All energy has to be applied in some way so that it makes changes. An engine has a degree of inefficiency because force and heat is dissipated into the surrounding atoms. But at the nuclear level, there is nowhere to dissipate it to.

There is a force within each nucleon which holds it's component quarks together, the force is sometimes referred to as gluons. In the nucleus, the nucleons remain intact and do not merge together. This is because the force holding the quarks of the nucleons together is stronger than that holding the nucleus together.

If we compare the astronomical and quantum levels, we see that each change in quantum structure due to gravity corresponds to a different astronomical body, which is the venue for changes due to gravitational pressure.

Remember that, in my cosmological theory, matter originates from a sheet of space that was not joined by it's structure of alternating electric charges to the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet was thus folded relative to the background space and the negative side came in contact with the positive side, causing one dimension of it to disintegrate in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, that we perceive as the Big Bang. The remaining one-dimensional strings form what we perceive as matter.

We could depict what we might call the Matter Cycle as three steps in each direction, first the formation of matter and then atoms from empty space and then it's destruction back into space. I have never before seen this pointed out. The Matter Cycle could be illustrated as follows:

SPACE > QUARKS > NUCLEONS > ATOMS        .....GRAVITY

SPACE < BLACK HOLES < NEUTRON STARS < STARS

We could say that gravity came into being at the Big Bang to oppose the Big Bang. It does this not only by trying to pull matter back together, but also by trying to break matter back down into space. Gravity is a property of matter in space and if enough matter is brought together, gravity will break it back down into the space from whence it came.

After the Big Bang, quarks joined together to form nucleons and then electrons, with an opposite electric charge, were added to form an atom with an overall neutral charge. My description of the Big Bang, involving this sheet of space, is based on there being equal numbers of negative and positive charges. Yet it also seems to indicate that quarks overall have more of a positive than a negative charge, since up quarks have a charge of + 2/3 and down quarks of - 1/3. But we must remember that the Big Bang produced both matter and antimatter, where the charges are reversed so that it all balances out.

(Note- One thing that caught my attention when formulating this theory is how the structure of matter seems to revolve around thirds. Quarks forming protons and neutrons are based on thirds and a proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron, which is a number that is divisible by 3 multiple times).

After atoms have formed, and enough are brought together by gravity, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by the pressure in the centers of stars. The formation of atoms by the nuclear binding energy force and by electromagnetism is the peak of the creation part of the cycle. The crunching together into larger atoms by the gravity of stars is the beginning of the destruction part of the cycle.

The life cycle of stars eventually end, with many of the atoms thrown out across space by the explosions of a nova or supernova. If the mass of a star is less then what is known as the Chandrasekhar Limit, for the Indian physicist of that name, it will end up as what is known as a white dwarf star. This limit is 1.4 times the mass of our sun. In such a star, the structure of the component atoms are still intact. The white dwarf does not have enough gravitational pressure to break down the very structures of atoms.

But if the mass of the former star was above the Chandrasekhar Limit, it will form what is known as a neutron star. In a neutron star, the structures of the atoms are broken down by the tremendous pressure of gravity. Electrons in atomic orbitals are crunched into protons, by what is known as electron capture, to form neutrons. This means that, in a neutron star, the structures of atoms are broken down but the structures of the component nucleons are not. A neutron star, although technically not a star, is a mass of neutrons held together by their tremendous gravity into a compact and extremely dense body.

Just as atoms correspond to stars on opposite sides of the matter cycle, with atoms on the quantum or creation side and stars on the gravitational or destruction side, nucleons correspond to neutron stars.

The most massive stars collapse into black holes. In a black hole, unlike a neutron star, even the structure of the nucleons has been broken down by the tremendous gravity. If this is the case, and neutrons are composed of quarks, then black holes must correspond to quarks and must be composed of the quarks which had earlier composed the nucleons which had been broken down. This is one step away from empty space on the gravitational-destruction side of the matter cycle, just as quarks are one step away from empty space on the quantum-creation side of the matter cycle.

A black hole must break down the structure of nucleons into quarks or else there would be no difference between a neutron star and a black hole. It has been postulated that there might be "quark stars" which exist, and which are a step beyond neutron stars in that the nucleons have been broken down into quarks. No such stars have yet been found, but this model indicates that black holes actually are quark stars.

A black hole is the densest possible concentration of matter yet it is also the final step in the matter cycle, of matter returning back to empty space. The very definition of a black hole is that nothing can ever escape it's gravity, not even light or other radiation. But yet black holes do give off radiation, the so-called "Hawking Radiation". This radiation is a return of the energy of the Big Bang that went into fusing matter together from the alternating negative and positive electric charges of empty space in the first place.

This neat three-step process in each direction indicates that black holes are the transition step between quarks and the alternating electric charges of empty space. The tremendous pressure within black holes brings about charge migration to relieve the pressure of like charges being forced together. But this, in effect, creates antimatter out of matter and causes the mutual annihilation of a matter-antimatter reaction. This is what causes black holes to gradually decay and give off radiation as they do.

This happens because the quarks of which matter has been broken down into in black holes are of mixed electric charge that are in very close proximity. The gradual decay of a black hole is the component electric charges of the quarks being rearranged back into the alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges in empty space. It is well known that black holes eventually decay, but why would the densest concentration of matter in the universe decay unless a process like this was taking place? Unlike a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation as the two are brought into contact, the decay and emitting of radiation of a black hole is slow because the process is very gradual.

In summary, all of this matter cycle takes place because a two-dimensional sheet of space formed in which the alternating pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges was not aligned with the pattern in the surrounding background space and this is what is required to get the two aligned. Unlike the quantum-creation side of the cycle, the gravitational-destruction side is scalar rather than sequential. A black hole only comes into being if there is enough gravitational mass brought together. A neutron star does not automatically develop into a black hole, without more mass somehow being added.

For another perspective on the relationship between the atomic and astronomical levels of reality, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .