The Universe is a Blackhole

[ihwip]

I read: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/u ... 00427.html

I don't like the white hole concepts. Why do they always have to use exotic physics? I have my own similar model concept but it does not incorporate white holes. It uses a "Reduced Infinity" concept.

Basically my idea is that when a black hole becomes a singularity it in fact becomes a new universe at the point of the big bang. This new universe has the same physics as our universe except at a smaller scale. This would mean all universes would be "Open". The reason matter cannot escape the universe inside is the same reason that matter cannot escape the event horizon. The infinite energy required would translate into an infinite distance an object would have to travel inside the pocket universe in order to reach the event horizon.

The difference is that instead of spewing all the matter out a wormhole/whitehole/whatever...it is still staying in our universe but the laws of physics inside the event horizon are crushed down. Protons would be much smaller from our perspective for instance. They would still behave the same way in the new universe when viewed from inside this new universe. Since all physical effects are shrunk down at the same rate everything in the black hole would look and act just like our universe.

 

[ramparts]

Explain how white holes are "exotic physics" but what you're saying isn't? The thing about white holes is that their possibility is predicted by general relativity, otherwise a very very well-tested mathematical theory. Your idea, as far as I can tell, seems to have no basis in any math or experiment. No matter how crazy the idea, we'll always trust the concept which is mathematically expressed and has some connection to experiment above a concept which is only expressed in words and seems to come out of the author's imagination. That's how science is done.

 

[nimbus]

No matter how crazy the idea, we'll always trust the concept which is mathematically expressed and has some connection to experiment above a concept which is only expressed in words and seems to stem from the author's imagination and trumping reality. That's how science is done.

 

[bdewoody]

For a while now I have had an idea that the big bang was related to a black/white hole event and then we can go back to the idea that the universe is cyclic and therefore there is no beginning or end, just cycles.

 

[ihwip]

I am not trumping the laws of physics or offering any crazy ideas. I am not sure about a mathematical description though. What I am saying is that the creation of our universe could have been caused by the creation of a singularity. The big bang would have occurred when the black hole initially formed an event horizon.

The compression of space-time would mix with special relativity so that everything within the event horizon becomes compartmentalized. This compartmentalization creates a pocket universe that, from its prespective has the same physics as ours but from our prespective the space time continuum is warped in a quasi logarithmic scale.

The problem is the event horizon creates a barrier that makes any observations impossible. How is the white hole concept provable?

I hope any of this is making sense. This is a theory I came up with quite a while ago and I haven't had much time to organize my thoughts.

 

[CommonMan]

This may be a stupid question. But, if the universe is in a black hole, which part are we in? Are we on the outside spinning around the hole? Which would that explain why we are flying thru space at a high rate of speed, and it gives the impression the universe is expanding. Or is it saying the universe came out of a black hole?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

This is not a new idea, and I don't know why the article intimates that it is. Although, IIRC, there was one sentence that said it wasn't a brand new idea.

Thirty years ago, in Sagan's 'Cosmos', he said, "If you want to know what it's like inside of a black hole, look around." (And it wasn't Sagan's idea either.)

But even if the Universe is a black hole, or came from one, we're still back to where we started: the orgin of the Universe remains an inexplicable riddle. Because the black hole itself had to have an origin, as the article mentions. And the one before that, and so on in infinity.

I vote for the closed, eternally oscillating Universe. Years ago, before we inferred the existence of dark matter, it was said that the Universe would not have enough mass to stop expanding and then collapse on itself in the "Big Crunch". Now they're saying that 90% of the matter in the Universe is the mysterious unseen but inferred dark matter.

So that leads me to believe that it is ultimately closed, and will one day--100s of billions or perhaps Trillions of years from now-- begin to contract and collapse back onto itself, which at some point will lead to a new Big Bang and expansion all over again. And if that's the case, it has probably already happened a quadrillion times, an infinite amount of times.

Freakin' mind-boggling. And what, if anything, is beyond the "universe" as we know it?

 

[SpeedFreek]

The Universe is NOT a Blackhole!

According to Sean Carroll, the universe is not a black hole!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... lack-hole/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll

 

[ramparts]

I am not trumping the laws of physics or offering any crazy ideas. I am not sure about a mathematical description though. What I am saying is that the creation of our universe could have been caused by the creation of a singularity. The big bang would have occurred when the black hole initially formed an event horizon.

The compression of space-time would mix with special relativity so that everything within the event horizon becomes compartmentalized. This compartmentalization creates a pocket universe that, from its prespective has the same physics as ours but from our prespective the space time continuum is warped in a quasi logarithmic scale.

The problem is the event horizon creates a barrier that makes any observations impossible. How is the white hole concept provable?

I hope any of this is making sense. This is a theory I came up with quite a while ago and I haven't had much time to organize my thoughts.

Well, white holes don't trump any laws of physics either. They're perfectly valid in general relativity. Meanwhile, what you're suggesting you've given absolutely no physical mechanism for. So what I've been taking issue with was the idea that your "theory" (don't take offence at the quotes, I'll explain in a sec) is somehow less exotic or more believable than something involving white holes. Both are highly speculative, but at least the latter has a mathematical description that accords with known physics.

Now: a theory isn't just a qualitative description of a phenomenon that someone imagined off the top of their head, and the mathematical description isn't just a barely-relevant secondary which can be shrugged off in one sentence and ignored thereafter. A theory is a mathematical edifice which makes predictions and explains known experimental results. Physics is mathematics. The best theories are those that derive mathematically from known physics with minimal extra assumptions. The second-best theories are those which propose a new mathematical structure in physics, but one which still is consistent with experiment. In both cases, the qualitative picture comes after the mathematics. Coming up with a picture which seems nice but has no mathematical expression is literally meaningless scientifically.

I don't mean to accuse you here, just to warn you away from what is a very common mistake for interested non-experts. If you don't have a very solid understanding of modern physics, then you shouldn't be coming up with theories, you should be making every effort to learn more.

And after all, saying "my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations" gets 10 points (#15) on the Baez index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[bdewoody]

This is not a new idea, and I don't know why the article intimates that it is. Although, IIRC, there was one sentence that said it wasn't a brand new idea.

Thirty years ago, in Sagan's 'Cosmos', he said, "If you want to know what it's like inside of a black hole, look around." (And it wasn't Sagan's idea either.)

But even if the Universe is a black hole, or came from one, we're still back to where we started: the orgin of the Universe remains an inexplicable riddle. Because the black hole itself had to have an origin, as the article mentions. And the one before that, and so on in infinity.

I vote for the closed, eternally oscillating Universe. Years ago, before we inferred the existence of dark matter, it was said that the Universe would not have enough mass to stop expanding and then collapse on itself in the "Big Crunch". Now they're saying that 90% of the matter in the Universe is the mysterious unseen but inferred dark matter.

So that leads me to believe that it is ultimately closed, and will one day--100s of billions or perhaps Trillions of years from now-- begin to contract and collapse back onto itself, which at some point will lead to a new Big Bang and expansion all over again. And if that's the case, it has probably already happened a quadrillion times, an infinite amount of times.

Freakin' mind-boggling. And what, if anything, is beyond the "universe" as we know it?

Isn't that what I said?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

[Isn't that what I said?

Yeah, but it's still not your idea, nor is it anything new.

And btw, bwood, a "cycle", suggests a "beginning" to the first "cycle".

How, why, and what in the heck was the "beginning" of the "cycle"? Hmm?

 

[bdewoody]

There was a program on the Discovery channel tonight that was billed as new. It did have a little new content but was mostly re-editing of stuff they have already presented. Still pretty interesting. The Stephen Hawking program was on also and it to seemed like a lot of re-editing of previously seen material.

 

[ihwip]

How about this idea:

The universe is a black hole with time inverted, meaning that time is going backwards. So the big bang doesn't happen until the black hole is evaporated into hawking radiation and at the creation of the black hole the heat death of the universe (inside the black hole) occurs. So because time flows backward inside the black hole, it appears to be created purely from light originating from an outside source, congeals into matter and eventually all the matter dissipitates into compartmentalized regions as some have predicted will happen as our universe ages. This would basically turn it into new particles as the black hole reverse-collapsed.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...And after all, saying "my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations" gets 10 points (#15) on the Baez index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Whew! 15 out of 30. At least the curve wasn't blown for the rest of us.

 

[amshak]

I ascept what speedfreek wrote that Universe is not a Black hole.
In the center of a Galexy there is a Blackhole. And all the stars moves around it . After the Big bang our Universe is expanding. And thers a theory that It contracts and colapses to form 2nd Big Bang. Universe is not a black in one view and the Universe is a cluster of Galexies, And many amazing things . And the Black Hole is a Part of it .
Do you ascept this Space viewers :?:

 

[nimbus]

We could be living inside a black hole.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1994
And a popular article:
There was wormhole research that suggests that our universe is located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe.

 

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

I read: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/u ... 00427.html

I don't like the white hole concepts. Why do they always have to use exotic physics? I have my own similar model concept but it does not incorporate white holes. It uses a "Reduced Infinity" concept.

Basically my idea is that when a black hole becomes a singularity it in fact becomes a new universe at the point of the big bang. This new universe has the same physics as our universe except at a smaller scale. This would mean all universes would be "Open". The reason matter cannot escape the universe inside is the same reason that matter cannot escape the event horizon. The infinite energy required would translate into an infinite distance an object would have to travel inside the pocket universe in order to reach the event horizon.

The difference is that instead of spewing all the matter out a wormhole/whitehole/whatever...it is still staying in our universe but the laws of physics inside the event horizon are crushed down. Protons would be much smaller from our perspective for instance. They would still behave the same way in the new universe when viewed from inside this new universe. Since all physical effects are shrunk down at the same rate everything in the black hole would look and act just like our universe.

Well ihwip, it seems to be a very interesting idea. But here's my problem, if the universe is a singularity, then there should be no matter within, because that would mean that a single singularity isn't a single point at all, but a matter of billions of objects that float around in a constricted space smaller than an atom.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.universetoday.com – The Universe Is Not In A Black Hole

by Steve Nerlich

Jul. 31st


(Caption) Does a spinning massive object wind up spacetime? Credit: J Bergeron / Sky and Telescope Magazine. An APOD for 7 November 1997.

It has been reported that a recent scientific paper delivers the conclusion that our universe resides inside a black hole in another universe – which is not exactly what was concluded. Also, that work delivers some more interesting, or at least more tangible, ideas about how our early universe may have unfolded.

The Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama (ECKS) theory of gravity – claimed as an alternative to general relativity theory, although still based on Einstein field equations – seeks to take greater account of the effect of the spin of massive particles. Essentially, while general relativity has it that matter determines how spacetime curves, ECKS also tries to capture the torsion of spacetime, which is a more dynamic idea of curvature – where you have to think in terms of twisting and contortion, rather than just curvature.