19 replies to this topic

[sean6]

Every black hole contains a new universe



Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.
Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.


http://www.foxnews.c...s-new-universe/

if this were ture, so much for something from nothing ( stephen hawking )

[StarMountainKid]

If our universe exists in a black hole, what about all the matter and energy that is constantly falling into that black hole?
Wouldn't energy be continually added to the universe?  What effect would this have?

[Andami]

StarMountainKid, on 18 May 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Wouldn't energy be continually added to the universe?  What effect would this have?

Supposedly all matter in the universe is constant. There can be know increase or decrease. So, if this were true, we would also lose matter through black holes, thus balancing the intake and expulsion of matter.

Edited by Andami, 19 May 2012 - 11:12 PM.

[sepulchrave]

I think that because space and time get entangled after the event horizon of a black hole, and this gets worse the closer you get to the singularity, that it is possible that the time that exists through the singularity has nothing to do with the outside.

i.e. matter is continually falling into a black hole but the Universe created on the other side (assuming this theory is true) will be based on all the matter that had ever  or will ever fall into that black hole.

I'm not completely sure whether this would hold if the black hole does not contain an actual singularity, though.

[Pyridium]

In my little world, totaly fictional, a black hole is a black star.  A star that does not shine because all light and matter can not escape the event horizon.  Where is all this light, xrays, gamma rays?  It is at the core, which is the "Singularity".  The singularity is the area where all subatomic material is negatively charged.  The positive and neutrally charged particles surround the "core" up to the event horizon.  The tempurature in the core is about 10 trillion degrees.  Why does the gravity not collapse on itself?  The core is "pushing" against the gravity which makes a black star extremely stable no matter how big it becomes by gathering new matter.

Black stars do collide but eventually they reform into a single black star again, much bigger.  I believe that at a given speed and given angle, the collision of 2 black stars can produce a very small big bang, such as we see in the universe as nebulae.

[Mr Right Wing]

sean6, on 17 May 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.
Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Exactly where in science is there any evidence a black hole is a hole?

May I point out if matter ceases to exist the curvature of spacetime which it causes also vanishes.

A blackhole is a star so dense that light cant escape from it. Stars which orbit others, move through space and even wobble along their paths.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 23 May 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[S I N]

Mr Right Wing, on 23 May 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Exactly where in science is there any evidence a black hole is a hole?

May I point out if matter ceases to exist the curvature of spacetime which it causes also vanishes.

A blackhole is a star so dense that light cant escape from it. Stars which orbit others, move through space and even wobble along their paths.

um.. what is the point you are tring to  make?

[sepulchrave]

Mr Right Wing, on 23 May 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Exactly where in science is there any evidence a black hole is a hole?

May I point out if matter ceases to exist the curvature of spacetime which it causes also vanishes.

A blackhole is a star so dense that light cant escape from it. Stars which orbit others, move through space and even wobble along their paths.

I agree with your sentiment, since curvature is cause by matter/energy density, it is difficult to see how the curvature responsible for the event horizon of a black hole is supported if the matter/energy goes ``somewhere else''.

If the space-time metric behind the event horizon (or even ``behind'' the singularity, whatever that may mean) can expand without limits to accomodate a new Universe, why does the event horizon not similarly expand?

The only way I can see it working out is if the ``time-like'' and ``space-like'' axes completely cross after going through the singularity (I guess this presupposes the existence of a new Universe ``behind'' the singularity, but anyway) so the expansion of the space of the new Universe cannot be tied to space-like expansion on our side of the singularity: the expansion of space in the new Universe is tied to the forward-only progress of time in our Universe.

Of course this doesn't really work unless the new Universe has 3 time-like and only 1 space-like dimensions, which I guess is possible but somewhat unfathomable to me (although there is a nice picture on Wikipedia about these sort of hypothetical space-times: http://en.wikipedia....ensionality.svg).

But I'm not an expert in this sort of thing; perhaps the space-time ``torsion'' they speak of in the article helps keep things from unwinding on our side of the singularity.

[PsiSeeker]

Hmm, I want to get this thought out quickly before I forget again.  There comes a point where the universe "forgets" as all matter decays (since matter is the only point of reference with which to keep time anyway.)  It is known that black holes do eventually decay i.e Hawking radiation.

From the point of perspective of the matter within the black hole wouldn't this "decay" happen almost instantaneously?  Time within the black hole would be at almost a stand still from our point of reference.  However I believe that time has the same subjective rate universally speaking.

This instantaneous decay might just look like a big bang from the perspective of the matter inside the black hole?

[UsefulSoul]

I'd like to point out that black holes emit nearly as much as they intake.  The gas that is observed as quasars is spewed converted into energy and released as jets of X-rays.  We have telescopes that actually see this happening.  
The debate of whether we are in a black hole is quite futile.  In the presence of a singularity (such as infinite density), we would be experiencing a stretch in time that would prohibit us from even fathoming the notion of falling into something.  The only evidence we could observe for this is the theory of "Dark Flow", in which we can observe galaxies falling into certain regions of the universe.  However, that doesn't come close to justifying that we are in a black hole.
What I like to think about are the tangibles.  Like I said above, black holes shoot out x-rays at extremely high energy.  Think about it.  If we were falling into a black hole, we would be obliterated just as easily by what is coming OUT of the black hole as opposed to the act of falling IN to the black hole.

I don't think black holes are strong enough to contain entire universes.  I don't believe in singularities, personally.  I think black holes are extremely dense but not infinitely dense.  Just my opinion.

[the L]

sepulchrave, on 20 May 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

I think that because space and time get entangled after the event horizon of a black hole, and this gets worse the closer you get to the singularity, that it is possible that the time that exists through the singularity has nothing to do with the outside.

Same as our clocks dont messure same time at full moon and new moon on earth.
Anyway after everthing soaked (light too) and become shpagetti what happened in the end of tunnel?!
I like idea about parallel universe but this isnt logic, imho.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

the L, on 28 May 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Same as our clocks dont messure same time at full moon and new moon on earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The phase of the moon has no effect on clocks at all.

[the L]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 28 May 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The phase of the moon has no effect on clocks at all.

Maybe its because of my poor English. Phase of moon dont, gravity has. Clocks are runing different rates during new moon and full moon. Millionth part of second difference.
Becuase on new moon sun and earth are on one side of the erath on full moon they are on oposite sides.

Earth have differnt gravity in those cases.
Black hole is manifest of gravity so...thats why I connected those two.

Edited by the L, 28 May 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

the L, on 28 May 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Maybe its because of my poor English. Phase of moon dont, gravity has. Clocks are runing different rates during new moon and full moon. Millionth part of second difference.
Becuase on new moon sun and earth are on one side of the erath on full moon they are on oposite sides.

Earth have differnt gravity in those cases.
Black hole is manifest of gravity so...thats why I connected those two.

This only affects pendulum clocks and even then is not noticeable on any pendulum device with a precision o less than 2milliseconds per day. In other words only high precision laboratory pendulums kept in a vacuum would be capable of detecting the difference.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 28 May 2012 - 08:40 PM.
Brain fade.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

i like the thought that our universe is actually contained in a small marble like sphere hanging on a string around a cats neck.