2011-01-30, 06:36 PM
Since black holes pull in matter and use it as an energy source, this hypothesis actually could make a lot of sense. If black holes do indeed have an end phase like this Kerr phase, that would bring up a whole new set of questions, though; since time is at a standstill, how is it still able to power itself? If it is at a standstill, that means it could no longer pull in new energy or use that which it has already absorbed, so wouldn't that technically just mean the black hole is "dead" and wouldn't even appear on our plane of existence anymore? Also, if it "dies" in this manner, since it does not actually collapse, how would it visually cease to exist from our standpoint? Or, are they referring to the fact that the processes have stabilized ad infinitum, even though they say the processes have stopped? Previous theories stated that even primordial black holes have a halflife and should die, even though their "death" would technically occur long after our universe has already either reached stagnation by overexpansion of molecules or has returned to a singularity in preparation for the next of an infinite line of Big Bangs, respectively, since we can't really predict with certainty what actually happens...
I was under the impression that GRBs were just random expulsions of mass energy. The force that causes a black hole can cause one, but black holes can't unless they collapse, can they?
Devil Wrote:Why did I totally miss this post? o.0
Very interesting indeed!
Still... it doesn't explain Hawking Radiation and the Gamma Ray bursts. If time stands still inside, nothing can come out... right? :o
I was under the impression that GRBs were just random expulsions of mass energy. The force that causes a black hole can cause one, but black holes can't unless they collapse, can they?