Creation of Supermassive Black Holes

Cosmologists have been offering theories as to how supermassive (SM) black holes, typically found in the center of galaxies, were created.  But they are analyzing creation from the standpoint of evolution.  In other words, they are starting with dying stars, which become black holes, and then having black holes eat other matter including cannibalizing other black holes, and through accretion over the years, they evolve into SM black holes.

This is an interesting approach to creation; however, it seems more likely that SM black holes have been in existence long before any evolutionary process could have created them.  In fact, scientists have discovered SM black holes very early after the Big Bang.  So, there was not enough time for stellar black holes to accumulate to form intermediate or very massive black holes, which later became SM black holes.

Even if Population 3 stars, which had short lives, collapsed into quasars and these merged, there was not sufficient time to create the multiple-billion solar mass that each SM black hole would have required.  Experts argue that it would have taken one out of every five stars currently in the Milky Way Galaxy to create the mass for its SM black hole.  Thus, it is more likely that the SM black hole for each galaxy was created when the galaxy itself was formed.  And not from stars within the galaxy, but from something else, perhaps the Creator Himself, that made the SM black hole an integral and critical part of the galaxy.  In fact, the galaxies probably would not function without the SM black hole in the center like the nucleus of a cell.

It is interesting how we examine both evolution and creation as a continual growth process, moving forward in time always toward something bigger and better.  But we fail to think about entropy, a powerful force that can put the brakes on expansion and may even be able to reverse its direction.  What if SM black holes, created after the Big Bang, were the seeds for galaxies?  What if all the black holes and our visible universe were one-third of the universe’s mass and dark energy were the other two-thirds?  What if the 1:3 ratio remained the same between the matter in our universe, but the entire universe were shrinking?  If you were looking at other stars, you would not notice the shrinking since all matter would remain in proportion to the other mass.

In effect, God is the Creator of this amazing perpetual-motion machine called the universe.  I may be wrong, but I believe that it is very possible that there are two major cycles in this mechanism:  (1) expansion when the matter expands like a balloon and (2) contraction when the matter deflates and shrinks in size.  In both these processes, SM black holes remain as the centerpiece for galaxies.  Even though SM black holes do grow through consumption of other mass, they also expel mass, so the theory that they are evolving over billions of years probably has little value.  However, the fact that SM black holes may be shrinking in the second cycle makes sense since we are seeing light from ancient galaxies that we could not see other than moving back in time to that event.  The light from the dead galaxies, otherwise, would have passed by us billions of years ago.

Looking At Our Past

If you look into a mirror, you will see a younger you.  The image that bounces back to you was you when you were just a tiny bit younger.

Your reflection also will be a fraction of a second older than when you first looked into the mirror.  Time has moved forward in the microsecond that allowed your image to speed to the mirror and return back to your eyes.

These sound like contradictions.  How can your image be a younger you when time has moved into the future?  Can I actually be younger in the future?  Perhaps this is possible depending on our perspective.  If we examine a stationary world using clocks, calendars, and newspapers, we will see each day as another step into the future.  If our frame of reference is expanded to include a moving universe, carrying us to a different time, we might find ourselves actually getting younger rather than older.

What?  How is that possible?  Well, as we travel at increased speeds, time actually slows down.  We age less at these higher accelerations.  Of course, nobody knows what happens as you enter a black hole, but some scientists believe that time stops and then reverses itself.

Most scientists think that the “red shift” is an indicator that our universe is expanding at an increasing speed.  It is more likely that our universe is collapsing at an accelerating speed. The red shift would result from either expansion or contraction (expanding away has the same red shift effect as shrinking away from other objects in the universe, except when gravity rules as it does within galaxies and between close galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda), but with entropy in play with expansion, contraction is the more logical conclusion since the speeds are accelerating.

If we are, in fact, shrinking exponentially, we should be able to see the light from ancient galaxies.  As it turns out, we can.  If we were expanding rapidly, we would not be able to see the ancient galaxies because their light would have sped by us at the speed of light billions of years ago.

So as we stare into space, we see ancient galaxies that may include our atoms when they were much younger.  Since they no longer exist, how can we see them if we are moving away from the Big Bang?  It is more likely that we are collapsing back toward the Big Bang and that is why we can see ourselves when we were younger.

Fabric of Spacetime

Would we understand our universe better by thinking of it as a web of spacetime that either: (1) bends around itself or (2) expands first into a macroworld and then contracts into a microworld until it is ready to expand again?

Einstein in his theory of relativity discussed space and time or “spacetime” as if it were a single interwoven continuum.  By combining space and time into a single entity and additionally marrying a three-dimensional universe (length, width, height) with a fourth dimension (time), we create Minkowski space.  And even though Einstein was disappointed that he never could unify the supergalactic universe of gravity with the subatomic world of quantum mechanics, this fabric might well extend from the macroworld into the microworld.  The Big Bang probably is the best example of this nexus.  But we probably leave the four dimensions behind when we journey into the subatomic world.  The quantum world could be ruled by dark energy.  We just don’t know.

Many cosmologists propose that the universe is expanding so that billions of years from now, earth will push into a dark corner of the universe with no sun or other stars in the sky, since our corner of the universe will settle into a “Deep Freeze.”  Of course, this makes no sense if you believe we exist in a closed universe.  A closed universe would probably have edges that were elliptical like orbits within galaxies or the orbits within atoms.  A closed universe also portends an infinite spacetime that could bend around an orbit or could expand and contract forever.

So, the first significant question is:  Is our universe closed or open?  Well, if you believe in the Big Bang, and there certainly is sufficient evidence to prove that event, you must argue that the universe is closed.  Why?  Because an event like the Big Bang had an event horizon, similar to the one predicted at the fringe of a black hole.  In other words, there is another side of the black hole and the Big Bang that we can never see.  Spacetime may stop at this point.  This separation creates an edge or event horizon that could not logically exist in an open universe.

If the universe were closed, then the next significant question is: Is perpetuity served by a curved spacetime or by constant expansions and contractions?  Or is it a little of both?

We know that the strength of a gravitational field can slow the passage of time for an object seen by an observer from a distance.  We also know that time speeds up for space travelers and even for those who reach the top of the Empire State Building.  Those of us, who remain on the ground, age slower.  If we were able to travel to a black hole, as we approached the event horizon, we would probably circle the dark matter close to the speed of light; however, observers on earth would think we were barely moving as time slowed down.

In effect, spacetime would be compressed near the event horizon.  And spacetime might even stop at the entrance of a black hole.  Logically, this may be the portal to a microworld where gravity goes wild and turns the reins over to quantum mechanics.  An example on a smaller scale could be when a star expands into a red giant, then contracts into a white dwarf, shrinking into a black hole, and finally explodes into elements that will eventually come back together again through gravity.  The Fusion-Fission cycle sounds like a miniature Big Crunch and Big Bang, doesn’t it?

And how does the curvature of spacetime come into play?  Well, we know that light bends around large objects like black holes.  We also know that objects bend the spacetime fabric.  We don’t know if the bending of spacetime is such that it encloses itself.  For example if we examined the earth from our perspective on earth, we might think it were flat.  But if we were in space, we would see the curvature of the earth.  That same principle may apply to our perspective of the universe.  We might view the universe as flat from where we are, but if we could see a larger segment of the universe, we might see it as being circular.

The temporal and spatial aspects of spacetime may be part of a unified fabric, but they may also operate on different principles.  In other words, space may move back and forth like an accordion, while time may travel both forward to the future and then back to the past.  The spatial movement is more in line with what we can understand using something like a coordinate grid to define where objects are in relation with each other.  The temporal movement is a more abstract manifold defining when events occur.  It would be difficult for us to imagine that time could move backward into the past.  However, there may be proof that it is doing just that.

We are able to see the light from ancient galaxies, dating back to the earliest galaxies in our universe.  How is that possible?  The light from that galaxy would have zipped in front of us billions of years ago.  Since the galaxy hasn’t existed for billions of years, it hasn’t emitting light for eons.  So, how can we view the light today?

Well, you might argue that spacetime is not regulated by the speed limit of light.  And that probably is true, but remember that there are two parts of spacetime.  Space may expand faster than the speed of light, but this probably occurred for only a short period of time after the Big Bang.  Time, on the other hand, may slow down and then reverse itself.  We are very familiar with spatial reversals of the north and south poles and other reversals that are part of the nature of our universe.  But it is difficult to imagine a temporal conversion that starts heading into the future and then backs into the past.  Quite frankly, it is a concept reserved for science fiction.  However, what else can explain the sighting of ancient galaxies?

Furthermore, we know that the older galaxies have a red shift that evidences an increasing acceleration.  Why would they be moving at increased speeds since gravity would have less of an impact on their movement due to entropy?  Well, it might be because of the additional aspect of time moving backwards.

An increased red shift of ancient galaxies viewed from our perspective may be caused by:  (1) a shrinking of the galaxies in a spatial movement away from each other or (2) a reversal of time creating the synergistic appearance of spatial and temporal movement in multiplying effects.  In other words, if you were to measure the distance from A to B and then include time constriction in that equation or consider the repetition of that movement from A to B by first going forward and then backward in time, your red shift might increase.

It is interesting to note that a red shift could be detected if two galaxies were shrinking just the same as if they were expanding away from each other.  The spacetime fabric may have billions of galaxies embedded in this fabric, so that an expansion of the fabric could also expand the galaxies.  The galaxies would be glued to the fabric and thus would not be flying away from each other.  It seems more likely that the galaxies that currently exist are either being drawn to each other by gravity, like the Milky Way and Andromeda, or they are slowly moving away from each other with only a minor red shift.

So what would explain the significant red shift among galaxies that are further away, who either are no longer in existence or would have very little gravitational tug on the other galaxies?  It might be caused by a mixture of temporal and spatial movements.   Since a contraction of the fabric may have the same effect on the galaxies, the galaxies might be shrinking in a proportional manner so that it would not be detected from our perspective.  As the galaxies got smaller, they would pull away from each other which would increase the red shift.

It appears to be more likely that a red shift would be evidence of a contraction rather than an expansion, since a proportional expansion, in theory, would be like slowly filling a polka-dotted balloon.  Those dots, signifying galaxies, would not separate very much as the balloon gradually expanded.  However, the dots would quickly reduce in size as the air came rushing out of the balloon with a time reversal.  When you add in the potential for time reversal, then the case for a shrinking universe in both space and time becomes more attractive and may explain the substantial increase in the red shift as we view ancient galaxies.

If we can look back and see ancient galaxies, why can’t we see the Big Bang.  Well, it is likely that we will never see anything except the results of the Big Bang.  In other words, we should be able to see the smoke from the gun, but not the gun itself.  And we may have stumbled upon this smoke.

There is an anomaly within the universe which is about 1.8 billion light years across and is located around three billion light years away from our solar system.  Currently, this is the largest structure we have found in the universe.  Little energy emanates from this circular area, which contains about 10,000 fewer galaxies than in other areas of the universe.  In effect, this anomaly has about 20 percent less matter inside it.

This cold spot within our universe has perplexed scientists since 2004, when it was discovered as an oddity in the otherwise homogeneous cosmic microwave background radiation.  This cosmic microwave background which can be traced back to the Big Bang is spread evenly throughout our universe except this area, which is about 2.7 degrees K cooler than the average temperature in the universe.  This anomaly could be the smoking gun for the Big Bang.

One other point that should be mentioned is:  There is a proportion of 3:8:24 that seems to consistently act as a foundation of our universe.  Mathematically we know that about 3% of our universe is visible matter, 24% is dark matter, and 72% is dark energy.  This division of matter and energy in the universe is a ratio of 3:8:24.  This same proportion applies to hydrogen, helium, and all other elements.  This could be a coincidence, but it is not likely.

But what about the missing 1%?  Our formula only accounts for 99% of the universe.  What accounts for the other 1%?  I can only guess, but it could be the ignition or the unknown force that keeps the universe constantly moving from expansion to contraction and back again.

And how does this apply to the closed universe?  Well, we know that neither matter nor energy is created or destroyed in this universe.  The proportionate division makes sense in a closed universe that is balanced for the most part, but needs that 1% to reverse the polarity so that our universe is a perpetual time and recycling machine.

Birth, Expansion, Collapse, and Death of Stars

There are many mysteries of the universe, but sometimes we can use analogies to develop theories that may explain the workings of our universe.  For example, the life cycle of stars may help us understand the life cycle of the universe.

Stars are born similar to the Big Bang which created our universe.  Perhaps the expansion of stars as they become red giants and then the collapse of stars as they become white dwarfs, leading up to the death called a supernova, may provide some insight as to how our universe will evolve from the Big Bang.

There are two laws of thermodynamics that apply to stars and may also apply to the entire universe.  The First Law of Thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy which states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.  In effect, matter and energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed, but can only be converted or transformed into another form.  Thus it can be said that total amount of mass and energy is constant in our closed universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems.  This may sound like a simple law, but it is complex in its application.  For example, if you fire a rifle, the bullet will eventually decrease in speed and the bullet will feel the effects of gravity as it is pulled toward earth.  Its trajectory and speed will deteriorate over time.

So if we start with a Big Bang, then we should expect that over a period of time that the speed of the expansion from the creative event will start to slow down.  The expansive period will deteriorate as it gets further from its origin.  This comports with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Does this same entropy occur with the lives of stars?  Stars are born in an explosive environment much like the Big Bang and then expand into a large burning gaseous body.  Next they go through a feeding stage where they burn much of their hydrogen, converting it to helium.  Then, if the stars are large enough, they will expand into red giants.  When the stars have run out of hydrogen fuel to fuse into helium within their cores, the cores will begin to collapse and heat some more.

In order to counter the cores’ collapse, the outer envelopes expand causing the temperature to drop at the surfaces, but also increasing surface area and thereby the luminosity of the stars.  Within the cores, temperatures will rise to begin fusion of helium into carbon.  The shells around the cores will rise to such a temperature so as to ignite further hydrogen fusion in that region of the stars.  The helium produced falls into the cores where it can be used as fuel.  Helium is fused into carbon and oxygen.  This time in the life of red giants, only a few million years, is short when compared to the billions of years for their full lives.  The expansion period of stars seems to mirror that of the expansion of the universe.  Eventually the red giant stops its expansion due to entropy.

So what about the First Law of Thermodynamics?  How does that factor into the life cycles of stars and the universe?  Well, stars are initially converting mass (hydrogen) into other mass (helium) and energy.  The total amount of matter and energy remain the same during this process, so that nothing is either created or destroyed during fusion within the stars.  The same probably is true for visible matter and dark matter and dark energy.  They may transfer from one form to another, but the total amount within the universe remains constant.

It is possible that matter is converted into dark energy, thus causing the shrinking effect of our visible universe.  After our universe expanded, entropy caused it to slow down, allowing dark energy to transform the matter into energy, making it contract.  The red shift detected between galaxies that remain proportional to each other can be explained by the shrinking galaxies, pulling away from each other as they decrease in size.  The red shift could also be explained by an ever increasing expanding universe, but this is not likely because of entropy and the fact that the matter in our universe is very uniform.  It is more likely that all the matter has remained proportional since the early expansion from the Big Bang.  The feeding period by the dark energy could have caused the increasing minimization of matter within the universe, yet it would look the same to an observer since all matter was shrinking at the same rate.

Later in life, the red giants will collapse into white dwarfs.  White dwarfs are thought to be the final stage of all stars whose mass is not high enough to become a neutron star—over 97% of the stars in the Milky Way.  After shedding their outer layers, they will leave behind cores, which form the remnant white dwarfs.  Usually, white dwarfs are composed of carbon and oxygen.   If the mass is between 8 and 10.5 solar masses, the core temperature is sufficient to fuse carbon but not neon, in which case an oxygen-neon–magnesium white dwarf may be formed.

The material in white dwarfs no longer undergo fusion reactions, so the stars have no source of energy, nor are they supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse.  They are supported only by electron degeneracy pressure, causing them to be extremely dense.  The physics of degeneracy yields a maximum mass for a non-rotating white dwarf, beyond which it cannot be supported by electron degeneracy pressure.  A carbon-oxygen white dwarf that approaches this mass limit, typically by mass transfer from a companion star, may explode as a supernova in a process known as carbon detonation.

The universe itself may follow this pattern of first expansion, then collapsing in the Big Crunch until it reaches a point of detonation or another Big Bang.

Expansion and Contraction of the Universe

The Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago and most scientists believe that there was a very rapid expansion of our universe, perhaps even exceeding the speed of light.  The speed limit for light, which normally cannot be exceeded, could be broken because more than likely it was space expanding and not matter.

And when scientists examine the universe, they are amazed at how consistent the matter is positioned, almost like the matter has remained the same with only space moving.  So, what happens after the heat of early expansion cools down?  What happens as the expansion slows down and follows the law of entropy?  It seems logical that contraction would be the next logical action of the universe as expansion came to a halt and then reversed.

The famous “red shift” discovered by Edwin Hubbell indicated that most of the galaxies were distancing themselves from each other at an increasing rate.  It does not seem logical that expansion is increasing in speed after 13.8 billion years.  But it may make sense to wonder if our universe is contracting at an increasing rate.  The “red shift” can explain both expansion and contraction equally well.  If the galaxies are racing away from each other, we would see a red shift.  Also if the galaxies remain proportionate to each other, if they shrink away from each other, this would also show a red shift.

The four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear were forged within the first second after the Big Bang before matter had mass.  Scientists believe that matter was given mass from interacting with the boson force and the Higgs boson, sometimes referred to as the “God particle.”  Without the Higgs boson, atoms could not have formed and the matter in the universe would never have been created.

But before the first second was over, the matter had to defeat its archenemy, antimatter.  And it was able to barely survive that onslaught.  If antimatter had won, we would all be antimatter humans, living on an antimatter earth.  What is the difference between matter and antimatter?  There probably is not much that separates the two other than having opposite electrical charges.  But it was critical that the two did not have exactly the same amount or they would have wiped each other out, leaving nothing behind.

We believe the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago, so assuming that we could see all the way back to that event would that mean that our observable universe was 13.8 billion light years wide?  Well, probably not since as we indicated earlier, space can expand at a speed faster than light; so some of that expansion of space was going faster than the speed of light.  We also need to consider our sight line back to the Big Bang would be a radius, so you may have to double the distance for the full width of the observable universe.  Thus, the observable universe is thought to be about 90 billion light years across.

Arguably, the observable universe would keep increasing in size if the universe continued to accelerate in its expansion.  It seems more likely that the observable universe, which appears to be very homogeneous, is shrinking in size.  The most distant galaxies, which are about 13 billion light years away, would not be visible to us if the expansion of space which exceeded the speed of light were still accelerating.  The fact that we are able to see these ancient galaxies tells us that the expansion slowed down, allowing the light from these galaxies to catch up with us, or possibly that we reversed direction and the shrinking of the universe allows us to see this slower light.

These are just several reasons why we may be inside an incredible shrinking universe.  But the best reason of all is that we live in a closed recycling universe that perpetually goes from a Big Bang to a Big Crunch.  If the universe, which is uniform, were accelerating, dark energy would be pulling it further out into space, stretching it to the breaking point.  We don’t see that happening.  It is more likely that the expansion has stopped and we are collapsing back as dark energy draws us back to the origin of the Big Bang.

Getting Closer to the Origin of Time

Scientists may be getting closer to the origin of time as they pair quantum mechanics with time.  We know that quantum theory involves random movement, while time is constant.  Or is time constant?  Scientists currently are conducting experiments by freezing ions to determine whether time and space are also random like in the quantum world.  If time is also random, then scientists may discover that time, as we understand it, does not really exist.

Perhaps, time simply was a creation by man, and the space-time continuum was a creation by Einstein that anchors us to earth and the universe.  Time and location are certainly practical measures of where we are at any particular moment.  But is time just a measure of where we are?

Humans live for a short period of time and then they die.  It is only natural for us to keep track of this temporal moment on earth.  However, is time of any importance beyond a measure for our life on earth?  Is time just something that we created to create control in an otherwise chaotic world?

We may also be getting closer to the origin of time in a more physical sense.  If our universe is shrinking, rather than expanding, we could be moving back in time, as we understand it, to the origin of our universe, more commonly known as the Big Bang.  Of course, moving in reverse, it would lead to the Big Crunch.

Why would we be contracting rather than expanding?  Well, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy, would require the expansion of the universe to be slowing down, but it is doing just the opposite:  it is accelerating.  As the universe moved closer to the Big Bang, it would accelerate.

The red-shift detected by Edwin Hubble can support the contraction theory of the universe.  As galaxies shrink uniformly in space, they move away from each other.  As they get closer to the event horizon of the Big Bang where time, as we know it, stops, the galaxies will continue to accelerate in speed.

The law of entropy, which is a method to measure disorder within a system, is a fairly complex calculation.  But it simply is the expression of the disorder or randomness of a system or sometimes the lack of information about it.  It is the perfect description for our failure to marry gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity with quantum mechanics.  The theory of everything is perhaps explained by entropy.

Today’s scientists are locked into a perspective of space-time expanding in a straight line forever.  Hubble’s discovery of the “red shift” at least forced scientists to think outside their box, realizing that the visible mass in the universe was accelerating, not decelerating.  But scientists still were like early man looking at the horizon, thinking that the earth was flat.

Everything in the universe runs in an elliptical pattern.  The force that is causing our visible universe to accelerate is the missing piece of our universe that scientists call dark energy, which is about 75% of the mass and energy in our universe.  So, we must be either headed toward dark energy at an accelerating pace either through curving back towards the original source of the Big Bang event or by being on the rebound and shrinking back to the Big Bang event.  Either can be argued with equal success.

However, I like the shrinking universe theory.  It factors in dark energy as lying in the quantum world, drawing us back into it.  The theory of accelerating back toward the quantum event horizon makes more sense because it is going from the macroworld returning to the microworld.  The problem with space-time is that it really does not fit in the quantum world.  At least, it doesn’t fit until it crosses the event horizon and returns to it.  The entropy is the lack of information that we can only piece together from our knowledge that dark energy exists somewhere in our universe.  It is the only logical force that could be causing the acceleration of the visible universe.  And it is most likely located within the quantum world that we cannot see, but probably are returning to either by an elliptical return to it or by a shrinking return.

Our space-time continuum may simply be only in our imaginations to provide the appearance of control in an otherwise random quantum universe, which is chaotic.  The truth may be that our fabrication of space-time is merely a small piece of the quantum universe that is rapidly headed toward reuniting with reality.

Time as defined by clocks and calendars has no meaning at the event horizon, where quantum theory is based on random movements.  Time, as we know it, stops or becomes random.  Any existence in this new quantum world would be infinite, so time would serve no purpose without a beginning and end.