Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Is the universe inside a black hole?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,289 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:19 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 12 October 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

But regardless, you have to admit that it would take a very peculiar combination of stretched/compressed space and spiralling geodesic paths to make the Universe look globally isotropic when in fact it has quite strong anisotropy.

I agree it might seem improbable, but I'm throwing it out there to highlight that all we assume we know is based on our observations, and if those observations are not as we assume them to be then what we know also should be called into question.

While I don't disagree with orthodoxy, neither do I restrict myself to consider it the only possibility.

As for space compressing due to extreme gravitational force, I agree that would be the case if the measurement of space was done in a straight line towards the centre of gravity. If we throw rotation into the picture, however, space could become more stretched the closer it gets to the centre of rotation and this could outweigh the compression due to gravity. Similar to spaghettification.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#32    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:12 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 12 October 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I agree it might seem improbable, but I'm throwing it out there to highlight that all we assume we know is based on our observations, and if those observations are not as we assume them to be then what we know also should be called into question.

While I don't disagree with orthodoxy, neither do I restrict myself to consider it the only possibility.

As for space compressing due to extreme gravitational force, I agree that would be the case if the measurement of space was done in a straight line towards the centre of gravity. If we throw rotation into the picture, however, space could become more stretched the closer it gets to the centre of rotation and this could outweigh the compression due to gravity. Similar to spaghettification.
Ok, I can accept that argument.


#33    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 12 October 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I agree it might seem improbable, but I'm throwing it out there to highlight that all we assume we know is based on our observations, and if those observations are not as we assume them to be then what we know also should be called into question.

While I don't disagree with orthodoxy, neither do I restrict myself to consider it the only possibility.

As for space compressing due to extreme gravitational force, I agree that would be the case if the measurement of space was done in a straight line towards the centre of gravity. If we throw rotation into the picture, however, space could become more stretched the closer it gets to the centre of rotation and this could outweigh the compression due to gravity. Similar to spaghettification.
If this rotation was happening would light not appear to bend away from the direction of rotation? I'm thinking like a ball thrown between two people on opposite sides of a rotating merry-go-round where the flight of the ball would appear to curve away though it was travelling straight as the observers moved, or am I missing something?


#34    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,289 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:57 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

If this rotation was happening would light not appear to bend away from the direction of rotation? I'm thinking like a ball thrown between two people on opposite sides of a rotating merry-go-round where the flight of the ball would appear to curve away though it was travelling straight as the observers moved, or am I missing something?

Light emitted from a source would appear to us to be travelling in a straight line, but would actually be travelling a spiral path along with everything else in the universe. It's motion is the same as everything else with respect this rotation so we would (or should) not expect to see a deviation such as you describe. That only happens when an object leaves a rotating objects frame of reference, but in a rotating universe all frames of reference are rotating around the same common axis.

Edited by Leonardo, 12 October 2013 - 02:58 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#35    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:19 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 12 October 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Light emitted from a source would appear to us to be travelling in a straight line, but would actually be travelling a spiral path along with everything else in the universe. It's motion is the same as everything else with respect this rotation so we would (or should) not expect to see a deviation such as you describe. That only happens when an object leaves a rotating objects frame of reference, but in a rotating universe all frames of reference are rotating around the same common axis.
OK. I was thinking in terms of, if light were a wave propagating through the ether as was first proposed it would behave that way but being particles traveling independently of the space it was traveling through would appear to bend, but you undoubtedly have a better understanding of this than I do. Obviously with everything in rotation around the same common axis as you say you wouldn't be able to see the rotation just like my people sitting across a merry-go-round from each other would appear stationary to each other. I still can't get the idea of the thrown ball curving away as it flies though. I know when light travels through space bent by intense gravitational fields it appears to bend though, at least as I understand it, it is actually traveling in a straight line through curved space

Edited by spacecowboy342, 12 October 2013 - 03:20 PM.


#36    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 3,909 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:01 PM

If we look at spacecowboy342's merry go round from a stationary position above, and the ball is thrown from one side of the merry go round to the other, what do we see?  Don't we see the ball traveling in a straight line, yet its trajectory from our point of view is following a curve or spiral in the same direction of the rotation of the merry go round?

If the MGR is rotating counter-clockwise, every foot the ball moves its position is shifted in the counter-clockwise direction so that it ultimately is caught by the receiver.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#37    onereaderone

onereaderone

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:earth

  • interfacing transdimentional inverse mobius feed back loop

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:39 PM

.... very cool stuff ....


#38    Pyridium

Pyridium

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2012

Posted 16 October 2013 - 04:11 PM

What people are calling "black hole" is just a neutron star that has enough mass to generate a gravity enough to form an event horizon that extends beyond the surface of the neutron star.  When a neutron acquires enough mass it switches from glowing white to black, not glowing at all.  I believe all neutrons stars that we can see have an event horizon located between the surface and center core.

http://en.wikipedia....f_neutron_stars


#39    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 16 October 2013 - 05:42 PM

View PostPyridium, on 16 October 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

What people are calling "black hole" is just a neutron star that has enough mass to generate a gravity enough to form an event horizon that extends beyond the surface of the neutron star.  When a neutron acquires enough mass it switches from glowing white to black, not glowing at all.  I believe all neutrons stars that we can see have an event horizon located between the surface and center core.

http://en.wikipedia....f_neutron_stars
As I understand it, and I admit my understanding is limited, above 3 solar masses neutron degeneracy pressure is not enough to prevent the gravitational collapse of a star beyond the neutron star level and into singularity. This is determined by mathematics obviously and not by observation as no on can look inside to see what is happening. Do you have reason to doubt the validity of the math?


#40    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:56 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:


As I understand it, and I admit my understanding is limited, above 3 solar masses neutron degeneracy pressure is not enough to prevent the gravitational collapse of a star beyond the neutron star level and into singularity. This is determined by mathematics obviously and not by observation as no on can look inside to see what is happening. Do you have reason to doubt the validity of the math?
You are talking about the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Above approximately 3 solar masses, the neutron degeneracy collapses as you say. The math is actually a bit vague, because the behaviour of the Pauli exclusion principle is pretty complicated for composite objects like neutrons (compared to simpler objects like electrons, for example).

Above the TOV limit it is still possible to avoid gravitational collapse if there is an even more degenerate form of matter. It is, for example, reasonable to expect that a quark star can exist, and these could be dense enough that they might generate event horizons (and therefore be indistinguishable from a black hole).

In fact, because there isn't a quantum theory of gravity, we can't really be sure whether the Pauli exclusion principle (singularities are impossible, there will always be some non-degenerate state of matter regardless of the gravitational force) or gravity (completely degenerate matter, i.e. a singularity, is possible) will win.

There are other considerations as well, for example if space is quantized into some form of discrete lattice then momentum is periodic; and it may be impossible for an object to actually reach a singularity (since the objects' momentum would increase until it hit the maximum limit, then increase further and end up going negative as it ``wrapped around''); consequently even gravity does beat the exclusion principle it might still be impossible to get all that matter into the same spot.


#41    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,976 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 18 October 2013 - 02:34 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 17 October 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

[size=4]

There are other considerations as well, for example if space is quantized into some form of discrete lattice then momentum is periodic; and it may be impossible for an object to actually reach a singularity (since the objects' momentum would increase until it hit the maximum limit, then increase further and end up going negative as it ``wrapped around''); consequently even gravity does beat the exclusion principle it might still be impossible to get all that matter into the same spot.
Your last paragraph (above) puts me in mind of a speculation I heard a long time ago to the effect that if space/time is quantized then a singularity ought not be possible without breaking the quantum structure, which one presumes would destroy space/time.  It makes sense to me but of course I'm just visualizing it all in gross terms.


#42    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,289 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:36 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 18 October 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

Your last paragraph (above) puts me in mind of a speculation I heard a long time ago to the effect that if space/time is quantized then a singularity ought not be possible without breaking the quantum structure, which one presumes would destroy space/time.  It makes sense to me but of course I'm just visualizing it all in gross terms.

Not necessarily true. In a quantised space-time a singularity can still exist and have zero-volume. It would simply have an apparent volume.

Although the problem sepulchrave set out regarding periodicity still might make a singularity impossible.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 October 2013 - 09:38 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#43    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:02 PM

This is fascinating though i'm definitely going to have to let it soak in a while to really wrap my head around it. So singularity may or may not be possible. The quark star possibility is new to me, though it would seem to make sense.


#44    Pyridium

Pyridium

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2012

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:18 PM

OMG!  Many of you are finally coming around to my way of thinking.  If you think we have a "Black Hole" at the center of our galaxy, you may also believe that our universe is in a singularity within a singularity...infinity.  When anyone says "black hole" it always assumes a singularity is fact.  This is imagination taken as fact.

I posted a link above which shows the layers within a neutron star.  The outer layer is the neutrons, each neutron has 3 quarks.  During the super nova, the atoms that make up the neutron remnant are so packed that the electrons were forced to bond with each proton to produce individual neutrons without orbiting electrons.  Deeper into the neutron star the quarks begin to break away from the neutron cluster.  Deeper at the core is the energy and pressure break up quarks into its smaller component parts like gluons, muons, etc.  At some point, the neutron star is a quark star.  There are many layers and with all the energy focused toward the center, there must be a repelling force balanced against the push of the gravitational force.  

Every neutron star has an Event Horizon.  This is the spot where photons are forced back toward the core of the star, hence no light escapes from this horizon.  When enough mass is accumulated, the neutron star will generate an Event Horizon that goes beyond the actual surface of the star.  At this point, the neutron star turns ifs lights off.  I predict one day we will see a bright shiny neutron star switch off, turn black.

So, we need to use more accurate terminology.  Think of every black hole as nothing more than a neutron star.  We can see the small young ones.  This will allow the math to work.  Math fails when talking about a singularity.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users