Are We Living In A Black Hole

[garycontreras1]

<p>Now i may be a backwoods hick, but i have always been rather excited about how things are. Now with all this colider stuff going on, i was just wondering if we are the product of a black hole? think about it. If a hole consumes light and planets and the sorts, why cant this be our sence of being? Just because they say its mass gravity, yet no one really knows for sure. Its like a super collider creating a big bang. i really dont know all the demografics behind all this , but its an idea i hope i am the first to think of. I try to be a thinker but you know how that goes. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Just something to think about.</p><p>GaryContreras1 </p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now i may be a backwoods hick, but i have always been rather excited about how things are. Now with all this colider stuff going on, i was just wondering if we are the product of a black hole? think about it. If a hole consumes light and planets and the sorts, why cant this be our sence of being? Just because they say its mass gravity, yet no one really knows for sure. Its like a super collider creating a big bang. i really dont know all the demografics behind all this , but its an idea i hope i am the first to think of. I try to be a thinker but you know how that goes. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Just something to think about.GaryContreras1 <br /> Posted by garycontreras1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The universe, prior to&nbsp; the big bang, is often described as singularity.&nbsp; A singularty is a description that involves infinities and can not be described by current physics and black holes are said to have a singularity at its center. </p><p>Hubble realized that all galaxy clusters' recessional speed were directly proportional to their distance, giving confirmation to concept of the big bang and the expansion of the universe.&nbsp; </p><p>With this in mind, it is a reasonable assumption that if the process was reversed, all matter in the universe began at a single point as allowed by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.</p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were some pretty smart guys thinking about this stuff some 80-90 years ago.<p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now i may be a backwoods hick, but i have always been rather excited about how things are. Now with all this colider stuff going on, i was just wondering if we are the product of a black hole? think about it. If a hole consumes light and planets and the sorts, why cant this be our sence of being? Just because they say its mass gravity, yet no one really knows for sure. Its like a super collider creating a big bang. i really dont know all the demografics behind all this , but its an idea i hope i am the first to think of. I try to be a thinker but you know how that goes. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Just something to think about.GaryContreras1 <br /> Posted by garycontreras1</DIV></p><p>West Virginia hick reporting in here. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>We're more the product of exploding giant stars than we are the black holes left behind from them. Everything we are, the carbon, hydrogen/oxygen, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, zinc, manganese, etc... that makes us and life up came from stars blowing up.</p><p>Hydrogen started it all. Well, mostly hydrogen and maybe a little helium. But mostly hydrogen. Way mostly. The million dollar question is how the hydrogen got here though. Black holes as we know them don't work as an explanation because nothing can escape a black hole's inside,</p><p>That makes for an interesting problem though. The Big Bang supposedly happened when all the matter in the entire universe exploded from one tiny little spot. Yet if a giant star blows, <em>it </em>leaves a tiny little spot that <em>can't </em>explode. Worse yet, matter can keep falling in and it <em>still</em> won't go all big bang and stuff.</p><p>Maybe that means that a black hole can hold up to our universe's mass before it explodes if one could explode at all. I dunno. So did we come from or are we living in a black hole? probably not.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Big Bang supposedly happened when all the matter in the entire universe exploded from one tiny little spot.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by dragon04</DIV></p><p>The big bang in reverse leads to a singularity.&nbsp; Its the <em>expansion</em> of this singularity being the idea that has been bandied about.&nbsp; The result of the expansion allowed for matter to cool and become what you see today.&nbsp; Of course, once the singularity was no longer infinitely dense, it can not be considered a singularity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The big bang in reverse leads to a singularity.&nbsp; Its the expansion of this singularity being the idea that has been bandied about.&nbsp; The result of the expansion allowed for matter to cool and become what you see today.&nbsp; Of course, once the singularity was no longer infinitely dense, it can not be considered a singularity. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Actually the situation is that if one runs a calculation backwards in time using General Relativity one reaches a singularity -- that is a situation in which the mathematics of General Relativity breaks down.&nbsp; Our knowledge of physics is not, at this time, adequate to describe the state of the universe at time zero, or in fact much prior to about 10^-33 seconds after time zero.&nbsp; The theory simply cannot describe either the singularity or how the evolution of the universe proceeded in the very earliest time.&nbsp; Also, since the singularity is a singularity in space-time, and not just in space, it makes no sense to speak of events prior to the big bang.&nbsp; To the best of our understanding of physics there was neither space nor time prior to the bang.&nbsp; To delve further into this mystery we shall need a significant breakthrough in physical theory, probably a melding of quantum theory with General Relativity -- something that has eluded us for many years now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Well said, DrRocket, and welcome to the forums. </p><p>I was more referring to the oft presented comparison between the big bang singularity and a black hole singularity and how that comparison leads to the idea that we are existing inside a singularity (or black hole as the OP posited). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well said, DrRocket, and welcome to the forums. I was more referring to the oft presented comparison between the big bang singularity and a black hole singularity and how that comparison leads to the idea that we are existing inside a singularity (or black hole as the OP posited). <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>A black hole and a singularity are not quite the same thing, at least as the terms are commonly used.&nbsp; Associated with the notion of a black hole are two things -- one is a singularity and the other is the event horizon.&nbsp; The theory predicts a singularity at the heart of the black hole, inside the event horizon.&nbsp; As is the case for the big bang singularity, the mathematics of general relativity fails at the singularity.&nbsp; However, the theory does predict the nature of the space-time manifold on either side of the event horizon, except for the singularity.&nbsp; In any case we are most certainly not within a singularity, which is in fact a point.&nbsp; We seem to have a pretty good grasp of the physics in our vicinity.&nbsp; Now the question as to whether or not there is some other "universe" outside of our own is perhaps open, but also rather meaningless if it refers to some sort of a space-time with which we can neither communicate nor interact.&nbsp; If it refers to the possibility of some other situation, perhaps akin to an evaporating black hole via the mechanism of so-called Hawking radiation then that is perhaps more interesting, but&nbsp; is likely to require a melding of quantum theory and general relativity in order to discuss it intelligently.&nbsp;&nbsp;As noted earlier we have failed to achieve that level of understanding despite massive efforts to do so over the last couple of decades.&nbsp; We need a breakthrough, and a very profound one at that.&nbsp; Some very good people have taken a crack at this topic -- Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Witten among others.&nbsp; Some very good mathematics has come of it, particularly in the understanding of 4-manifolds.&nbsp; However, there has been essentially no new physics, and certainly no new physical predictions of a verifiable nature.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>