
Are black holes made of dark energy? - wwarner
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-black-holes-dark-energy.html
======
aalleavitch
So this is something I was thinking about recently. Given that quantum
harmonic oscillation indicates that quanta are actually defined as harmonics
of a fundamental frequency, what if dark matter is simply all energy at a
frequency that isn’t a harmonic? Likewise, what if dark energy is simply the
quantum harmonic oscillator that is our universe undergoing damping? That is
to say, it’s not so much that space is expanding as it is that the frequency
of our universe is diminishing: lower frequency = higher wavelength, which
appears to us like space is growing. The graph of an oscillator undergoing
damping looks an awful lot like models of dark energy expansion of the
universe.

If this were the case, we could think of black holes as nodes on this wave.

~~~
gus_massa
No. The solution to the problem you are proposing is well known and is part of
any (advanced?) QM course, and it doesn't involve dark matter or dark energy.

In an harmonic oscillator (an ideal perfect spring with an ideal punctual
mass) the energies are (2n+1)ħ/2*ω. They are all multiples of the minimal
value for this oscillator. Note that it is a different set of values for each
oscillator.

Each of these energies is associated with a wavefunction with a well defined
energy. Combining all these wavefunctions you can represent any wavefunction.
(The technical term is "orthonormal base", or simply "base".) This is easy to
prove. More details in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator)

So if you try to put the oscillator in a state that is not a wavefunction with
a well defined energy, the state can be represented as a linear combination of
the wavefunction with a well defined energy, and it will evolve following the
laws of QM. It will not get transformed to dark energy or dark matter or get
lost by damping.

If you later make measure the energy of the harmonic oscillator, the arbitrary
wavefunction will colapse to a wavefunction with a well defined energy, and
the probabilities are easy to calculate knowing how the initial state was
decomposed in wavefunction with a well defined energy. If you measure the
position or speed, the calculation is similar but there are a few more
technical details.

In a more realistic system like an Hydrogen atoms, the energies are not
multiples of a minimal value, the energies are like -E0/n^2. The corresponding
wavefunctions are a base anyway, so any initial state can be decomposed in
wavefunction with a well defined energy (that sometimes are calles "orbitals",
but sometimes more general states are called "orbitals"). So there is no a
fundamental frequency, there is no a minimal energy that is the divisor of all
the energies, there is no dark energy.

In atoms with more electrons the calculations are more complicated, there is
no nice formula for the energies, but is anyway possible to decompose any
initial state without using dark energy.

~~~
alfiedotwtf
Interesting question, but also interesting answer. Thanks for the detailed
response!

------
pdonis
As usual, phys.org makes claims that go way beyond what the actual paper
justifies. The actual paper is here:

[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab32da](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab32da)

The phys.org article says "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". A more accurate phrasing would
be that the researchers have _proposed_ a modified model. Whether their
proposal is valid remains to be seen as other researchers in the field check
their work.

~~~
spaceandshit
I've always felt that phys.org is a reliable, less-sensationalized source for
interesting science articles. Is it common for them to "make claims that go
way beyond what the paper justifies"?

~~~
pdonis
_> Is it common for them to "make claims that go way beyond what the paper
justifies"?_

I've seen it enough times that it doesn't surprise me.

------
krastanov
This is actually a pretty well known, but not generally accepted alternative
theory of dark energy called backreaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-
reaction#Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-reaction#Cosmology)

------
Robotbeat
> _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._

Hmmm, if this is true, then it means it's possible (in principle) to engineer
the expansion rate of the universe by either preventing or causing the
collapse of stars in a certain way. See the concept of Star Lifting:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting)

------
abakus
Where did the dark energy come from? Before collapse these are just normal big
stars, we cannot detect dark energy from them, but after explosion they
suddenly become GEODE teemed with dark energy? I am a bit confused.

~~~
rurban
Dark energy is simply a theory with a classical hidden constant, which solves
all the measurements and theories, but does most likely not exist.

Until a better theory explains more (like the Mond or a better gravity
theory), it will stay with us for a while.

------
foxes
I'm reminded about Mach's principle [0]. Its interesting to see a connection
between local structure and then something more global.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle)

------
sebastianconcpt
_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._

------
MiroF
I only have up to university quantum (so no GR), but my understanding was that
dark energy was believed to be equally distributed throughout all of space.

How would a GEODE produce such an effect?

~~~
psv1
I haven't done any physics past high school but isn't dark energy basically
"Our equations don't work out, let's give our error term a name and act like
it's all good"?

I'm sure this is oversimplified or outright wrong, can anyone correct me?

~~~
jaf656s
The reality is closer to:

We have a lot of observational evidence that the equations are very accurate.

But when we put all the mass we know about into the equations, the result of
the equation doesn't match our observations.

Since we have a lot of evidence that the equations are very accurate, then
it's more likely that there's more mass we haven't accounted for.

(at least for dark matter)

~~~
ars
That's dark matter, dark energy is something else entirely, with much flimsier
data and evidence.

~~~
jaf656s
whoops, I thought they said dark energy/matter

------
fallingfrog
Just a clarification, the article states that GEODEs are _not_ black holes,
they just look similar from the outside since they are almost dense enough but
not quite.

------
tony
Does dark energy or dark matter box-in our way of thinking?

Have we actually proved scientifically there's a force or physical matter
acting on something and it's not just being obscured from our vantage point?

Isn't dark energy/matter only visible at huge scales? Is there any pictures of
dark energy or matter in any localized system? We didn't even know the correct
color of Pluto until we got close, how could we know if something isn't
actually there, or spacetime just twists and contorts for the sake of it
without outside interaction/gravity acting on it?

Isn't there also a chance we're in a literal simulation of Plato's cave
allegory until we see stuff up close? Not in the sense he meant it, but in the
sense we're using assumptions/tools that involve inference. Wouldn't this risk
assigning character/classifications to things that don't turn out to be true
in the end?

~~~
joe_the_user
_Have we actually proved scientifically there 's a force or physical matter
acting on something and it's not just being obscured from our vantage point?_

\-- In the case of dark matter, the answer is yes. Dark matter has been
indirectly observed from the gravitational lensing of the dark matter shrouds
surrounding galaxies - notably in situations where the shrouds of two
colliding galaxies separate from the galaxies themselves. It's a "picture" as
exact as many things astronomers have observed.

~~~
alfiedotwtf
> in situations where the shrouds of two colliding galaxies separate from the
> galaxies themselves

TIL...

That’s the first time I’ve read that. Sounds interesting, have you got any
links?

~~~
gepoch
Sounds like he's talking about the bullet cluster...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster)

Although that's a colliding pair of galaxy clusters. I'm not currently aware
of any examples of this effect being observed for just two galaxies.

~~~
alfiedotwtf
Awesome, thanks for the link!

------
andrewflnr
Interesting to see a causal connection from local scopes to universal. I've
been thinking about the converse. A fair number of theories of black holes,
like the event horizon firewall, depend on interaction with cosmic background
radiation. If fundamental properties of black holes are tied to the
circumstances of the formation of the universe they live in, and those
properties end up, and those properties are also tied to quantum gravity, that
would mean there's an interesting connection between the three story of the
universe's formation and it's fundamental laws. I realize I'm pretty deep into
crackpot territory, even with all the if's, but it's at least a fun idea.

------
ben_w
A shower thought after watching some recent _PBS Space Time_ videos: if the
(hypothetical) inflaton field of the early universe is associated with certain
high energy density conditions, could the interior of a black hole
(specifically the region near what would be the singularity under vanilla
general relativity) reproduce those conditions and return the inflaton field
to the inflation-era state?

Related thought: what would it look like from the outside if a patch of the
universe returned to inflation? Does it make any difference from the
observer’s POV if this change occurs inside or outside an event horizon?

------
primis
What is meant here by "exotic crust" of the black hole. I assume it's
something _inside_ the event horizon

~~~
ars
These objects would no longer be black holes, and would not have event
horizons.

LIGO and other detects are not able to tell the difference. Black holes are
assumed based on the mass, event horizons have never been detected, just
[mathematically] assumed.

~~~
bwood
Does this not count as detection of an event horizon? Or is it just considered
strong circumstantial evidence?

[https://eventhorizontelescope.org/](https://eventhorizontelescope.org/)

~~~
ars
No, that is not evidence of an event horizon, it's not circumstantial evidence
either because it pre-supposes the existence of one.

Despite the name, no event horizon was directly photographed. Partly because
event horizon's are not actually visible LOL.

The photo taken can not distinguish between a true black hole, and a super
massive object of the same mass.

We just assume that if you have that much mass there is no force that is
capable of preventing it from becoming a black hole.

But, that's not proof that such a force does not exist.

------
kovek
For the last few days I've been trying to make as many associations as
possible between (the big bang, the progression of the universe, and the end
of the universe) and a black hole's progression. For some reason this makes me
think yet again that the universe might be inside a black hole.

~~~
soulofmischief
Is that black hole inside another black hole?

~~~
Taniwha
turtles all the way down ....

------
ttlei
Generic Objects of Dark Energy... Is this exotic matter with negative energy?

------
JumpCrisscross
Anyone have access to E.B. Gliner's 1966 paper describing a GEODE?

~~~
gilbetron
I think this is it: [http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-
bin/dn/e_022_02_0378.pdf](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_022_02_0378.pdf)

------
humble_engineer
Dark energy is a placeholder word to explain a phenomena scientists can't
understand. Before Einstein they didn't know what the medium was for light
waves. For water waves it is obviously water, what does light use to travel
through? They created this phrase called "ether" light traveled through
"ether". Dark energy and dark matter are exactly the same case.

~~~
philipov
Physicists don't actually call it dark energy, that word is for journalists.
Physicists call it the cosmological constant.

