Timeline for Could both the high incidence of supermassive Black Holes (BH) and the expansion of the universe be consequences of vacuum entanglement energy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2023 at 13:20 | history | edited | RalphW | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Aug 6, 2023 at 21:32 | comment | added | RalphW | Yes. My mistake, I'm sorry. But the model interpretation really should focus on BH surface area. | |
| Aug 6, 2023 at 20:21 | comment | added | eshaya | Your last comment is in conflict with the final paragraph of your question. | |
| Aug 6, 2023 at 19:27 | comment | added | RalphW | A more accurate statement of the cosmic inflation rate predicted by this model is that vacuum inflation depends directly on total BH surface area (not the rate of mass accretion). BH surface area increases by absorbing vacuum spacetime, which increases the amount of entanglement energy released to the bulk. The latter drives vacuum expansion as Dark Energy. | |
| S Aug 3, 2023 at 22:27 | history | suggested | Brendan Darrer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improved grammar
|
| Aug 3, 2023 at 19:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 3, 2023 at 22:27 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2023 at 16:52 | comment | added | eshaya | The growth of galaxies, AGN activity, star formation, black hole formation, etc. all show a precipitous drop since z=2 (see The Black Hole Mass Function Across Cosmic Times, Figs. 4 and 7, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac34fb). But measurements of cosmological constant show it to be constant over this time period. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 16:42 | comment | added | RalphW | Are the measures of growth you mention directly related to accretion by BH? If not, then recent constant expansion rate may still be consistent? Thank you. | |
| S Aug 3, 2023 at 16:06 | review | First questions | |||
| Aug 4, 2023 at 11:29 | |||||
| S Aug 3, 2023 at 16:06 | history | asked | RalphW | CC BY-SA 4.0 |