Question Is the Universe itself a Black Hole?

[EjmMissouri]

OK, This may be a really dumb questrion, but now that there is a forum in which to ask the question, here is one that I have had for a long time.

Considering how super dense the universe was just after the Big Bang, I have always wonder if when we look at the universe we are looking at a Black Hole from the inside out? Would not the mass and density of the early universe meet the requirements for a Black Hole? If so then the inside of a this Black Hole in particular is not a singularity.

 

[rod]

Good question. My thoughts here. Is the beginning of the universe created via white hole cosmology? I offer this quote for readers. "There are only 3 options for the origin of this universe: 1) it has always existed 2) it suddenly appeared from nothing 3) it was created supernaturally - “It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” - Guth & Stienhardt, May 1984, Scientific American

 

[EjmMissouri]

I don't know about white hole cosmology, but as for the universe being a black hole, I believe I am corrrect in saying that nothing has ever escaped the boundary/event horizon of the universe, whatever that bounday may be? In other words, like it or not, we are stuck here.

 

[rod]

Okay, we are stuck here From what I read in cosmology now, we have the multiverse with inflation that triggers the Big Bang event so perhaps no black hole at the beginning. Perhaps some on Earth will move into the multiverse but I know using my telescopes I do not see the multiverse or universe emerge from an area smaller than an electron. I do see and observe sunspots on the Sun moving across the solar disk and the Great Red Spot moving across Jupiter as well as the Galilean moons orbiting. Those observations I know for sure are real because I have first hand knowledge of those events

 

[Ittiz]

Could be, I came up with a theory we live in an infinitely dimensional multiverse and why we have three dimensions is because we've been compactified into and infinite series of black holes, each one compactifiing one dimension. Black holes in our universe would be compactifing 3d down to 2d universes. Following that our black hole could have 2d black holes on their "surface" compactifing their 2d universes down to 1d universes.

 

[twr]

Could be, I came up with a theory we live in an infinitely dimensional multiverse and why we have three dimensions is because we've been compactified into and infinite series of black holes, each one compactifiing one dimension. Black holes in our universe would be compactifing 3d down to 2d universes. Following that our black hole could have 2d black holes on their "surface" compactifing their 2d universes down to 1d universes.

Sorry but this is not a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. You can't falsify such claims. It is a mental game but not more.

 

[Ittiz]

You're right, theory was the wrong word, a hypothesis is what I meant. Then again many people say String theory (m-theory) also isn't a theory. In fact if you take that definition one step further the theory that exactly accurately describes everything also won't be a theory even if someone hypothesizes it because no one would ever be able to falsify it. Test it yes, falsify it no.

 

[Spencerpam]

Interesting thought. But how could that explain the expanding universe?

 

[Ittiz]

@Spencerpam

Energy falling in. In fact if the progression of apparent time was pushed forward by the effect then the space increase would seem steady even if the actual mass increase wasn't. Although I think the expansion would actually be driven from the energy of background radiation emanating (via hawking radiation) from higher uncompactified dimensions. If that were the case if large amounts of energy fell in the universe may suddenly start expanding. Cosmic inflation anyone?

The scary thing about that is the thought that the conditions on the universe could suddenly change without warning. With that idea the universe, after a very long time, would eventually achieve a negative energy state. Once the 4 dimensional universe outside our universe cools down more than the temperature in our's. For all we know (and most likely) this negative background radiation effect would already being happening in the higher uncompactified dimensional levels far beyond the 4 dimensional one.

We'd start to see an accelerating collapse of the universe as the negative background radiation started to dominate everything, but it wouldn't get hot as it collapsed because the negative background radiation would be sapping the energy out of everything. Creepy...

It could also explain how dimensions are compactified in m-thoery, and why some higher dimensional string-theories seem to be constructs for some lower dimensional string-theories (hence why most string-theories seem to describe different aspects of the same thing). I really need to write something much more detailed about it, although I guess putting the idea on here prevents someone from stealing the idea outright.

 

[Spencerpam]

@Spencerpam

Energy falling in. In fact if the progression of apparent time was pushed forward by the effect then the space increase would seem steady even if the actual mass increase wasn't. Although I think the expansion would actually be driven from the energy of background radiation emanating (via hawking radiation) from higher uncompactified dimensions. If that were the case if large amounts of energy fell in the universe may suddenly start expanding. Cosmic inflation anyone?

The scary thing about that is the thought that the conditions on the universe could suddenly change without warning. With that idea the universe, after a very long time, would eventually achieve a negative energy state. Once the 4 dimensional universe outside our universe cools down more than the temperature in our's. For all we know (and most likely) this negative background radiation effect would already being happening in the higher uncompactified dimensional levels far beyond the 4 dimensional one.

We'd start to see an accelerating collapse of the universe as the negative background radiation started to dominate everything, but it wouldn't get hot as it collapsed because the negative background radiation would be sapping the energy out of everything. Creepy...

It could also explain how dimensions are compactified in m-thoery, and why some higher dimensional string-theories seem to be constructs for some lower dimensional string-theories (hence why most string-theories seem to describe different aspects of the same thing). I really need to write something much more detailed about it, although I guess putting the idea on here prevents someone from stealing the idea outright.

What do you know about the cold spots they claim exist around black holes

 

[Ittiz]

nothing. Although I suppose pretty much all inactive stellar mass black holes would be colder than the surrounding universe.

 

[Myron Kuzemko]

Interesting thought. But how could that explain the expanding universe?

It can explain expanding Universe. if we assume, we are inside black hole, that means we see the white hole around us. Instead of driving time&space fabric into singularity it drives it out of singularity, i.e. - expand. You can ask where is this white hole? Try to imagine that we are inside of our Universe which has 90 bln light years in diameter and expands all the time. Wherever we are we are in the MIDDLE of this sphere: on Earth surface, in Andromeda, on Perceids - it doesn't matter. What is beyond this sphere? Nothing. There is neither time nor space. From geometrical point of view and point of view of relativity - it is a dot with infinite mass. Negative mass, since it pushes all the matter from itself (can it explain a black matter/energy, uhh?) And all our Universe is just warped around this dot. I like this idea about warped Universe: https://www.space.com/universe-may-be-curved.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9721&utm_content=20191106_SDC_Newsletter+-+adhoc+&utm_term=3272902&m_i=ApzE_qYxiVzIdQgywFlB+I9HK1tirY3SPwqgTzRgD3W34fmENoBryqO1lcEFmfZh3nbLFPTCrY5zjwjqF3kfxqZPlddgldaqAs

 

[Brad Watson - Miami]

Considering how super dense the universe was just after the Big Bang, I have always wondered if when we look at the universe we are looking at a Black Hole from the inside out?

Yes. A supermassive black hole in the heart of a galaxy in our parent universe spawned our BIG Bang-Bit Bang/supermassive white hole.

Would not the mass and density of the early universe meet the requirements for a Black Hole?

I AM not sure of that - is anyone? A black hole is supposed to contain a singularity of infinite density at its center according to general relativity.

If so, then the inside of this Black Hole in particular is not a singularity.

It's choice (C) the center of a supermassive black hole is a singularity and the center of a supermassive black hole in our parent universe contains this Universe.

 

[EjmMissouri]

I AM not sure of that - is anyone? A black hole is supposed to contain a singularity of infinite density at its center according to general relativity.

The existence of a singularity in a black hole has always been only a theoretical assumption, not a proven point. In truth, no one know exactly what you would find inside a black hole.

 

[Brad Watson - Miami]

The existence of a singularity in a black hole has always been only a theoretical assumption, not a proven point. In truth, no one know exactly what you would find inside a black hole.

I'll go with general relativity re: the singularity in a black hole and in the BIG Bang-Bit Bang/ supermassive white hole.

 

[Brad Watson - Miami]

Is the beginning of the universe created via white hole cosmology?

Yes. Matter & antimatter. Particle & antiparticle. White hole/BIG Bang-Bit Bang & black hole. Sweet & sour. (I AM now thinking about ordering Chinese.)

 

[Truthseeker007]

OK, This may be a really dumb questrion, but now that there is a forum in which to ask the question, here is one that I have had for a long time.

Considering how super dense the universe was just after the Big Bang, I have always wonder if when we look at the universe we are looking at a Black Hole from the inside out? Would not the mass and density of the early universe meet the requirements for a Black Hole? If so then the inside of a this Black Hole in particular is not a singularity.

That's a good question and I have a question on top of that one. If the universe started as one little tiny dot. Once the universe started to expand. Where did all the matter come from to make these planets and suns? I mean did all the matter just magically appear? What's the scientific explanation for that one?

 

[xXAndy78Xx]

OK, This may be a really dumb questrion, but now that there is a forum in which to ask the question, here is one that I have had for a long time.

Considering how super dense the universe was just after the Big Bang, I have always wonder if when we look at the universe we are looking at a Black Hole from the inside out? Would not the mass and density of the early universe meet the requirements for a Black Hole? If so then the inside of a this Black Hole in particular is not a singularity.

I have been wondering this, the big bang Vs the big crunch, what we see now as the big bang is our universe, but the only thing we know of to create a single point would be a black hole, so that would suggest that at some point everything was drawn into a single point to burst through space time to create our universe, our big bang, could be the result of a big crunch, if X universe lived out its life until all there was left was one black hole which has crunched down to a single point, its going to burst, it can't caugh out, so it throws it inwards, our big bang becomes a big fart, for want of a better word

 

[Craftsman X]

That's a good question and I have a question on top of that one. If the universe started as one little tiny dot. Once the universe started to expand. Where did all the matter come from to make these planets and suns? I mean did all the matter just magically appear? What's the scientific explanation for that one?

My understanding is that although very small, that dot contained all of the mass (matter) that was needed to create all of what we see now… so it didn't magically appear, it was squashed into a tiny space?
but I am not a scientist!

 

[Truthseeker007]

My understanding is that although very small, that dot contained all of the mass (matter) that was needed to create all of what we see now… so it didn't magically appear, it was squashed into a tiny space?
but I am not a scientist!

It is interesting and quite hard to imagine all matter contained in one little dot. I guess it could have been a really big dot.lol!

 

[Craftsman X]

It is interesting and quite hard to imagine all matter contained in one little dot. I guess it could have been a really big dot.lol!

...I remember having a great science teacher many years ago who made things like that easier to imagine for us kids.
I think that being a good teacher is all about having this way of explaining things that allows kids to understand things in a way that relates to things that they can grasp. In other words having a good understanding of science and how things work is all about how you are taught, and not what you are taught... I think its so important to be engaged with what you are learning at a young age so that you get all of the questions answered that you need to make up your own mind about things.
My problem is that this was so long ago, its hard to get basic questions answered without seeming to be uneducated...!
Hopefully I can get some answers here!

 

[Truthseeker007]

...I remember having a great science teacher many years ago who made things like that easier to imagine for us kids.
I think that being a good teacher is all about having this way of explaining things that allows kids to understand things in a way that relates to things that they can grasp. In other words having a good understanding of science and how things work is all about how you are taught, and not what you are taught... I think its so important to be engaged with what you are learning at a young age so that you get all of the questions answered that you need to make up your own mind about things.
My problem is that this was so long ago, its hard to get basic questions answered without seeming to be uneducated...!
Hopefully I can get some answers here!

The problem is mostly everything is a theory and even the most intellectual minds don't know for sure on any of this when it has to do with space. I have found though that Quantum Physics and Mechanics are really starting to make a lot of sense for things. Such as infinite universes and many dimensions. I think Quantum is the way of the future for discovering all this. I myself really find it to make much more sense that their are many universes just like this one. This one was just recently born and will probably die just like in nature. But until infinity universes will be born and die. Then I guess the question in all of that would be where did the very first universe come from? I don't think there ever was a beginning but just is and always will be.