Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries

May 18, 2012 by Nikodem Poplawski
Nikodem Poplawski displays a "tornado in a tube". The top bottle symbolizes a black hole, the connected necks represent a wormhole and the lower bottle symbolizes the growing universe on the just-formed other side of the wormhole. Credit: Courtesy of Indiana University

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 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.

But these theories leave major questions unresolved. For example: What started the big bang? What caused inflation to end? What is the source of the mysterious dark energy that is apparently causing the universe to speed up its expansion?

The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more. It eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe. And it draws upon two central theories in physics.

The first is general relativity, the modern theory of gravity. It describes the universe at the largest scales. Any event in the universe occurs as a point in space and time, or spacetime. A massive object such as the Sun distorts or "curves" spacetime, like a bowling ball sitting on a canvas. The Sun's gravitational dent alters the motion of Earth and the other planets orbiting it. The sun's pull of the planets appears to us as the force of gravity.

The second is quantum mechanics, which describes the universe at the smallest scales, such as the level of the atom. However, quantum mechanics and general relativity are currently separate theories; have been striving to combine the two successfully into a single theory of "quantum gravity" to adequately describe important phenomena, including the behavior of subatomic particles in black holes.

A 1960s adaptation of general relativity, called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. It not only provides a step towards quantum gravity but also leads to an alternative picture of the universe. This variation of general relativity incorporates an important quantum property known as spin. Particles such as atoms and electrons possess spin, or the internal angular momentum that is analogous to a skater spinning on ice.

In this picture, spins in particles interact with spacetime and endow it with a property called "torsion." To understand torsion, imagine spacetime not as a two-dimensional canvas, but as a flexible, one-dimensional rod. Bending the rod corresponds to curving spacetime, and twisting the rod corresponds to spacetime torsion. If a rod is thin, you can bend it, but it's hard to see if it's twisted or not.

At the center of spiral galaxy M81 is a supermassive black hole about 70 million times more massive than our sun. Full Credit: X-ray: NASA / CXC / Wisconsin /D.Pooley & CfA / .Zezas; Optical: NASA/ESA/CfA/A.Zezas; UV: NASA/JPL-Caltech/CfA/J.Huchra et al.; IR: NASA/JPL-Caltech/CfA

Spacetime torsion would only be significant, let alone noticeable, in the early universe or in black holes. In these extreme environments, spacetime torsion would manifest itself as a repulsive force that counters the attractive gravitational force coming from spacetime curvature. As in the standard version of general relativity, very massive stars end up collapsing into black holes: regions of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

Here is how torsion would play out in the beginning moments of our universe inside a black hole. Initially, gravitational attraction between particles would overcome torsion's repulsive forces, serving to collapse matter into a smaller region of space. But eventually torsion would become very strong and prevent matter from compressing into a point of infinite density. Nonetheless, matter would still be packed together in a highly dense state. The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole.

The increasing numbers of particles with spin would result in higher levels of spacetime torsion. The repulsive torsion would stop the collapse and would create a "big bounce" like a compressed beach ball that snaps outward. The rapid recoil after such a big bounce could be what has led to our expanding universe. The result of this recoil matches observations of the universe's shape, geometry, and distribution of mass.

In turn, the torsion mechanism suggests an astonishing scenario: every black hole would produce a new, baby universe inside. If that is true, then the first matter in our universe came from somewhere else. So our own universe could be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe. Just as we cannot see what is going on inside black holes in the cosmos, any observers in the parent universe could not see what is going on in ours.

The motion of matter through the black hole's boundary, called an "event horizon," would only happen in one direction, providing a direction of time that we perceive as moving forward. The arrow of time in our universe would therefore be inherited, through torsion, from the parent universe.

Torsion could also explain the observed imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe. Because of torsion, matter would decay into familiar electrons and quarks, and antimatter would decay into "dark matter," a mysterious invisible form of matter that appears to account for a majority of matter in the universe.

Finally, torsion could be the source of "dark energy," a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and increases the rate of expansion of the universe. Geometry with torsion naturally produces a "cosmological constant," a sort of added-on outward force which is the simplest way to explain dark energy. Thus, the observed accelerating expansion of the universe may end up being the strongest evidence for torsion.

Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe. It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity. While resolving some major questions, it raises new ones of its own. For example, what do we know about the parent universe and the black hole inside which our own universe resides? How many layers of parent universes would we have? How can we test that our universe lives in a black hole?

The last question can potentially be investigated: since all stars and thus rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recently reported evidence from surveys of over 15,000 galaxies that in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed," or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed," or rotating counterclockwise. In any case, I believe that including torsion in geometry of spacetime is a right step towards a successful theory of cosmology.

Explore further: Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers

More information: Inside Science Minds presents an ongoing series of guest columnists and personal perspectives presented by scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and others in the science community showcasing some of the most interesting ideas in science today.

Source: Inside Science News Service

4.3 /5 (104 votes)

Related Stories

Could primordial black holes be dark matter?

Sep 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- “We know that about 25% of the matter in the universe is dark matter, but we don’t know what it is,” Michael Kesden tells PhysOrg.com. “There are a number of different theories about what da ...

Recommended for you

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

13 hours ago

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 268

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

skand1nsky
1.6 / 5 (68) May 18, 2012
Gotta love these science nutjobs who make these wonderful testable predictions. NOT. This is roughly equivalent to quackery: torsion in 2 bottles implies torsion within universes. Wow. I'm beginning to think modern science is nothing but a faith-based system, just as dogmatic as religious zealotry. The same goes for string theory, the multiverse theory and a number of other mathematical 'tools' which don't really provide any bedrock understanding of reality, but rather offer up myriad modes of belief, which anybody can choose to subscribe to.

There seems to be no objective TRUTH anymore in science; and thus the very foundations of rationalism and scientific materialism are recognised as fallacies, subject to the whims and fancies of the observer.

kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (62) May 18, 2012
There still is good science going on but you wont find it in a astrophysicist. especially not in a "cosmologist"

As long as they output nonsense that almost nobody understands they will get "research" grants.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (42) May 18, 2012
Joonas_Laitala
4.8 / 5 (51) May 18, 2012
There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how life as we know it arrived on the scene all by itself.

There just isn't ANY scientifically accepted explanation that can account for the incredible complexity in even the smallest/simplest self-sustaining living organism. The laws of chemistry/physics will need to be suspended for life to arise spontaneously from a primordial chemical soup.

This is in anyway related to this article how? This article has nothing to do with the origins of life. Even if it proved that the primordial soup theory was wrong, which is highly unlikely if you've looked at the evidence, how in the world does that invalidated the entire scientific method?
ElGuapo
4.5 / 5 (47) May 18, 2012
This is roughly equivalent to quackery: torsion in 2 bottles implies torsion within universes. Wow. I'm beginning to think modern science is nothing but a faith-based system, just as dogmatic as religious zealotry.


What it really amounts to is a highly speculative theory which is not taken too seriously as yet. A small group of physicists are investigating it. So you jump to the conclusion that modern science is a faith based religion...
Doug_Huffman
3.7 / 5 (23) May 18, 2012
Compare and contrast falsifiable (after Popper) with testable. Doing so you will learn the difference between science and nonsense, and of the problem of demarcation.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (26) May 18, 2012

So we may live in a recursive universe? I would like to subscribe to this guys newsletter, but not if I have to wear a hat.

It seems that this hypothesis shuts itself off from verification. As in the past sometimes, just the mathematical mechanics can lead to physical insights, ... but "physical insights" require verification to be meaningful.

It would seem more natural if the condition of torsion free metric was not required. Einstein tried to make use of a non-zero torsion in GR.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (29) May 18, 2012
These ideas would be useful for Saturday morning cartoons and perhaps Hollywood pseudo-science fiction. Not likely to be useful in understanding reality.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) May 18, 2012
Compare and contrast falsifiable (after Popper) with testable. Doing so you will learn the difference between science and nonsense, and of the problem of demarcation.


Does this standard apply to Cataclysmic AGW?
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (38) May 18, 2012

So we may live in a recursive universe? I would like to subscribe to this guys newsletter, but not if I have to wear a hat.

Oxymoron

if our universe was inside a blackhole that means that blackhole is in another universe? so a universe in a universe is impossible

http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68
Benni
1.2 / 5 (30) May 18, 2012
This is roughly equivalent to quackery: torsion in 2 bottles implies torsion within universes. Wow. I'm beginning to think modern science is nothing but a faith-based system, just as dogmatic as religious zealotry.


And you are probably more correct than you know. The instantaneous clue to this kind of zealous quackery is their first mention of "infinity". This word (infinity) is their unintended admission that they do not comprehend Einstein's spherically finite universe in which Conservation of Energy is quite literally the "ruling force". It is also incomprehensible to these quacks that something "infinite in size" cannot fit inside of something "finite" in size (and by the way, there is no such parameter as "infinitely small", infinity by definition has no boundaries, big or small).
skand1nsky
1.1 / 5 (22) May 18, 2012

What it really amounts to is a highly speculative theory which is not taken too seriously as yet. A small group of physicists are investigating it. So you jump to the conclusion that modern science is a faith based religion...


Religion too is highly speculative. Some people claim to have spoken with God and have had direct experience of the divine, and thereby extrapolate that very same deity to apply to everyone else. The paradox is, in your fervent belief that science can explain and validate everything, you have now made science your God. That is extremely dangerous territory if you ask me: subscribing to any belief system makes you closed to every other possible scenario.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (24) May 18, 2012

So we may live in a recursive universe? I would like to subscribe to this guys newsletter, but not if I have to wear a hat.

Oxymoron

if our universe was inside a blackhole that means that blackhole is in another universe? so a universe in a universe is impossible

http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68


Could you kindly stop rating 1's for ever post I make. Are you a troll or just a child?

Beside your pointless symantics, I think my meaning was clear. One "universe" shut off from another "universe" which in itself may contain another "universe" closed off,.. when does it end?

We used to call what we now call galaxies, was The Universe. So until another word comes along for the above case, I will continue with "universe".
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (25) May 18, 2012
We used to call what we now call galaxies, was The Universe. So until another word comes along for the above case, I will continue with "universe".

Because they thought that is all that existed. If something exists like a world in black hole than it just means that the content of the universe is different than we thought. Universe in a universe is an oxymoron. There is no semantics involved.

BTW first this guy has to prove his hypothesis to make more sense than the quark-gluon plasma to reside in black holes theory.

http://www.scienc...ics.html

Good luck with that bro. enjoy your money.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (24) May 18, 2012
If i forget about the oxymoron argument there is still one problem.
Black holes "leak" hawking radiation.
Squirrel
2.5 / 5 (11) May 18, 2012
The theory does not answer the question with which it started. What existed before the Big Bang gets turned into what existed before the blackhole which exists in another Universe.

Presumably this blackhole/universe exists in another blackhole, and so ad infinitum--but what existed so that this Matryoshka (Russian) doll ad infinitum of blackhole/universes could itself exist? Perhaps this Matryoshka sequence exists as a "universe" in another blackhole and has the same relationship to an even greater sequence of higher "universes". And ditto like reiterating powers to the power to the power....

But why should any of this exist at all?
HTK
1 / 5 (12) May 18, 2012
That just doesn't make sense.

This universe is then perforated with millions of black holes and therefore those growing black holes are tiny in comparison with our universe?

besides, the universe expands in matter of trillionth of a second too so the sizes are too disproportionate alone to prove this reasoning wrong. So there.
HTK
1 / 5 (16) May 18, 2012
it would completely destroy our universe if this was true!

But an intriguing theory...
Peteri
2.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
Yawn! This article is old "news"!
I first read about this idea in a New Scientist article way back 2 years ago. http://www.newsci...rse.html
Origin
1 / 5 (11) May 18, 2012
Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries
versus
Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?

We have apparently a bit problem here...
Genep34
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
maybe i am missing something here but if the black hole in our galaxy were a parent to another universe how could the amount of matter in our galaxy create a universe with more matter.

and what created our universe
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (19) May 18, 2012
How do you know it is testable until the theory is entirely formulated?

"Gotta love these science nutjobs who make these wonderful testable predictions. NOT." - SkandTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
What makes you think it has to have the same amount of matter/energy as the parent?

"maybe i am missing something here but if the black hole in our galaxy were a parent to another universe how could the amount of matter in our galaxy create a universe with more matter." - Genep

You might consider how the influx of matter into a black hole (can't be done as seen from the parent universe), manifests itself to the interior of the black hole.
Jotaf
4.7 / 5 (38) May 18, 2012
The problem with the guys who made the first comments is that they assume physicists work at the same level as described in this article. As if all they did was sit around and come up with descriptions that you can write in a news article.

They do not. This is the layman's explanation of deep mathematical concepts. They started with an interesting hypothesis, and the conclusions you just read about followed naturally from that. Open up any of his papers and see:

http://www.physic...ons.html
Origin
1.3 / 5 (20) May 18, 2012
The water surface model of space-time of AWT doesn't support the hypothesis, that the universe is formed with interior of black hole neither. At the sufficient distance everything from observer who is using surface ripples for observation of water surface will appear blurred because of surface ripple scattering. But does it mean, the Universe has some boundary or event horizon there? I'd say not: if we would move toward the alleged boundary of black hole, then the observable portion of Universe would travel with us in similar way, like the scope of view inside of landscape under haze.

There is another difference too: if we would travel outside of black hole, we would be forced to shrink into very small size outside of it. We should overcome strong gravitational force during this. Nothing similar we can actually observe with the distant galaxies. Our lovely Universe appears quite normally there and their size / movement as well.
El_Nose
3 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
I like the theory, the question is is it testable -- or can it describe a model that fits our universe very closely.

and I agree -- black holes leak Hawking radiation --- at least in this universe's physics. Black holes eventually evaporate... but the real kicker for this article is that there should be a HUGE white hole out there somewhere throughing out new matter into this universe then. --- and the possibility that only one white hole can exist into out universe.

but if we were in a black whole would that mean that our entire universe was really a white hole. I mean that particle come into existance in our universe in theory where ever there is a pure vaccuum, is this the mechanism that underlie that phenomenon??
Origin
1.3 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
I like the theory, the question is is it testable -- or can it describe a model that fits our universe very closely
The idea, that the vacuum is formed with very dense matter inside of black hole fits the dense aether model well, but the geometry AWT is still more intriguing. It's deeply relative and it doesn't rely to assumption, that the observable portion of universe is some tangible object, which has some diameter and finite age assigned. IMO The visibility scope of Universe is defined with us, i.e. with our ability to interact with remote areas of Universe with sufficiently high probability - not with some external physical boundary.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
We await your proof.

"besides, the universe expands in matter of trillionth of a second too so the sizes are too disproportionate alone to prove this reasoning wrong." HTK
JIMBO
2.1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
Nico needs to do his prior history research better. This has been postulated since the 1970s, as the Kruskal diagrams of rotating black holes map different S-T manifolds into each other thru the singularity. His trip is torsion, but other than the galaxy chirality survey he mentions, done by One person, there is no other evidence for Einstein-Cartan gravity, in which torsion figures.
skand1nsky
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2012
How do you know it is testable until the theory is entirely formulated?

"Gotta love these science nutjobs who make these wonderful testable predictions. NOT." - SkandTard


Whatever your biases, Vendecariarianina, I would like to make the case that any framework for understanding the notion of other universes requires some testable parameters. Now, unless you intend visiting the nearest GBH or other neighbourhood singularities, there is no way to test this hypothesis. Thus, this theory will forever remain in the realm of speculation, which, as I drew the parallel earlier, is more reflective of religiosity or philosophy than hard empirical science.

Deal with it without throwing your toys out of the pram.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
Here is what Nico is pinning his idea upon, the Only evidence, the FREE link to which physorg failed to post (Again):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815
Origin
1 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
So our own universe could be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe.
This concept is really quite old. Linguist Mark Hucko proposed multi-level Universe concept, which was elaborated recently by Wiltshire, Leith and others (1984).

http://www.slovio...niverse/
http://solid13.tp...alls.pdf
http://arxiv.org/...49v1.pdf

IMO the main problem of this concept is in definition - which part still belongs into our Universe and which not?
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.2 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
the big bang was agreed to be a singularity that went unstable and exploded. so our universe WAS a black hole as well. black holes inside of black holes. what gives.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.6 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
I sympathize.

Ultimately theory won't be testable because the energies needed to preform the testing will be outside of the range that can be generated.

At that point there will be a range of theories that all mesh with observation, and you will be free to select which one you wish to believe, based on your own preconceptions of simplicity, beauty, consistency, etc.

"Whatever your biases, Vendecariarianina, I would like to make the case that any framework for understanding the notion of other universes requires some testable parameters." - SkandTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
I know of no one who has "agreed" to this.

Can you provide names?

"the big bang was agreed to be a singularity that went unstable and exploded" - Jeddi
Moebius
1.3 / 5 (12) May 18, 2012
If this theory is true we must be in one hell of a big black hole. Much bigger than any one in this universe. I also find it hard to believe that matter in a black hole would act like the matter in our universe, forming galaxies, solar systems and self-destructive ape-like inhabitants.
Anda
2.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
As the article says, that's not something new, some chord theories postulate the same.
It's just an untestable affirmation... Maybe and maybe not..
gwrede
1.4 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
This really isn't much better than the ideas of some native people. Just because the audience can't prove otherwise, doesn't let Poplawski throw out his entire brain before conjuring up The World.

I wonder what the next theory I hear looks like.
luminiferousethan
4.6 / 5 (19) May 18, 2012
There seems to be no objective TRUTH anymore in science;


Ah, so new developments at the LHC and new observations with the Kepler Space Telescope are subjective?

modern science is nothing but a faith-based system, just as dogmatic as religious zealotry


Ha! ha.. ha... no wait. Sorry, that's not funny. Good try though. I usually find those who try to equate science with religion are the ones who

As long as they output nonsense that almost nobody understands


claim that because they don't understand it, it must be wrong.

The universe doesn't care if you understand it or not. Scientists are aware that these ideas such as string theory and such are not an accurate representation or reality, but they are TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. This is how science works. Which is more then you are doing sitting there, butt hurt, because someone proposed an idea you don't like.
SteveL
3 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
You might consider how the influx of matter into a black hole (can't be done as seen from the parent universe), manifests itself to the interior of the black hole.

Same thing I was wondering. If we were in a black hole, should we not be able to detect a universal influx of matter and energy?

Could Dark Energy inside a black hole (universe) be Hawking Radiation outside the black hole?

It's hard to imagine the gravitational forces in a black hole that we detect in our own universe, much less a series of black holes each contained within the other somewhat like Matryoshka dolls.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
In my opinion, there is still HUUUGE misunderstanding. The model, which the above article is describing DOESN'T correspond the black hole in general relativity sense. The black hole in general relativity has a singularity INSIDE at its center, whereas the above model has a singularity at its SURFACE.
SteveL
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
I wonder what the next theory I hear looks like.

Probably like any other sound wave.
kris2lee
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
It does not mean that there should be infinite number of (outer) universes. It is enough that there are two.

It can be like a hourglass.
Ventilator
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
I personally find it interesting that out of everything, this theory feels right, but will not likely withstand rigorous scientific experimentation. I know that's been said already, but consider this:

If any given single universe has a structure, and is started by a big bang, what caused the big bang? Scientifically speaking, the matter and anti-matter core of the big bang that was somehow stable needs to be looked at first, then we should wonder where that came from. After we understand that, we can go further back.

Simply put, walk it back. That's the best part of the scientific method; be methodical, be vigilant, and be smart about it.

Theory is fine, just don't expect everything one can think of to be likely, let alone possible.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
maybe i am missing something here but if the black hole in our galaxy were a parent to another universe how could the amount of matter in our galaxy create a universe with more matter.

and what created our universe

That is beecause the theory doesnt make sense.
Its just a brainfart.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
if the black hole in our galaxy were a parent to another universe how could the amount of matter in our galaxy create a universe with more matter
IMO it actually could, if you consider the fractal-like, scale invariant universe in every point. Every speckle of dust would be sufficiently large enough for every sufficiently tiny observer, after then. But we couldn't see the same matter like this tiny observer. The matter is simply term for extension of random environment with positive curvature here and the amount of matter observable depends on the complexity of observer, after then.

We can illustrate this concept with example of scale-invariant monetary cycle. The rich people are thinking in billions and they don't care about pennies, whereas the poor people don't care about billions. The number of bills which all people maintain and exchange during their life remains approximately the same, though. The rich people just handle larger bills in average.
SoylentGrin
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
Same thing I was wondering. If we were in a black hole, should we not be able to detect a universal influx of matter and energy?


Energy and particles bubble out of the vacuum constantly.
No processes yet known account for the energy of cosmic rays.
Additional matter/energy coming in could cause an accelerating expansion... which we see.

It's not implausible.

Terriva
1.3 / 5 (12) May 18, 2012
Black holes aren't hungry eaters of matter and because they can evaporate through neutrinos in AWT (i.e. not only via photons), they can actually shrink during the life of galaxies. For example, the central black hole in ancient galaxy like the Milky Way is actually quite tiny. The mass of the Milky Way at ~80% of the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy but measuring the speeds at which these stars orbit the center of the galaxy, astronomers deduce that the black hole is about 30 million times as massive as the Sun and roughly 10 times as massive as the central black hole in the Milky Way. The only difference here is, the Andromeda galaxy is twice as younger, then the Milky way - its central black hole still didn't evaporate enough.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
I consider the spewing of invisible neutrino jets as the main reason of the Milky Way mysterious lobes. I presume, even the smaller stars including the Sun radiate the invisible neutrinos through their poles, i.e they behave like tiny neutrino pulsars. It manifest itself with variations of decay speed of radioactive elements inside of space-probes, which pass through these jets accidentally.
Daniel_Bennigan_s
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Very interesting article. I find the ending the most interesting though. The fact that rotation is different in different hemispheres of the universe makes me think of our own planet and how this is occurring.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
"...the Andromeda galaxy is twice as younger, then the Milky way..."

Globular clusters in Andromeda and MWG are roughly the same age. I've already posted links to published work stating this in response to previous posts. Yet, here you are again making the same dubious claim. As I have asked before (with no response, btw), do you have any legitimate references for this statement?

And if not, why do you persist in repeatedly making demonstrably false claims? You obviously enjoy making stuff up.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (12) May 18, 2012
and I agree -- black holes leak Hawking radiation --- at least in this universe's physics. Black holes eventually evaporate... but the real kicker for this article is that there should be a HUGE white hole out there somewhere throughing out new matter into this universe then. --- and the possibility that only one white hole can exist into out universe.


If the theory really makes sense it should be called something else than a "universe".

If we take it into perspective than that means that the "universe" inside the blackhole must be completely disconnected from the outside "universe" (this makes me want to post the freaking video again) because it would mean that whatever is connected to the "universe" is in fact inside the "universe".

We know that is not the case with black holes at all. Too much arguments against this idea for me, i hope others think about it and think the same.

Ok here it is , i have to do it. http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68
cyberCMDR
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
OK let me see if I get this. According to string theory reality has about 11 dimensions, of which we see three. In a black hole singularity, you may have the necessary conditions to expand along a different subset of dimensions, effectively creating a parallel universe.

As this universe expands any matter present spreads out. This spreading out creates a negative energy situation. (Positive energy is what you get when separated masses come together, i.e. the kinetic energy of a falling object). Because the amount of energy is not balanced and matter is energy (e=mc^2), more matter is created in the new universe to balance the equation. (Particles appear and disappear at the quantum level all the time, but with the negative energy state of the new universe they would stay around.)

What this implies is that black holes create the conditions for popping out along a different set of dimensions, but don't have to contribute all the mass to the new universe.
Vendicar Dickarian
2.2 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
If any given single universe has a structure, and is started by a big bang, what caused the big bang?


I heard at church on sunday that God did it.

And when did Physorg institute this "no more than one post" for 60 minutes nonsense?

For some real comedy, check out PhysOrg's comment guidelines and see if they match reality:

Comments that will be deleted include:

spam;

promotion of services, publications or work unless it is relevant to the post;

abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone;

off topic ramblings, rants, or pointless verbiage;

political and religious discussions;

pseudoscience theories.
LagomorphZero
3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
"The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole."

This could be tested by measuring the growth in mass of black holes in our own universe, if you assume the increased matter is measurable from out side the black hole. It may not be because of the information barrier provided by the event horizon, but if that's the case, what mass are we measuring from black holes anyway?
Shelgeyr
1.3 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
Poplawski displays a "tornado in a tube".

One man's fluid dynamics is another man's magical cosmic fantasy.

@JIMBO posted: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815
Reply: Then Niko should be looking at the electrical origin of galaxies.

Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory...

It hasn't been successful at all, unless you're simply counting the number of people who have been told it is true and don't question the dogma. See also "Falsification".

The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more.

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're taking great fictional liberties with the definition of "answers".

It eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe.

But no more so than do fever dreams, psychedelic drugs, and magic...

Spacetime torsion

Anyone using that term other than in a mocking manner should be blacklisted.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) May 18, 2012
For some real comedy, check out PhysOrg's comment guidelines and see if they match reality:

Comments that will be deleted include:

abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone; --- VD


You have point. Had PhysOrg moderated with competence, nearly all of your posts would have been deleted for calling other posters "#tard", like a 11 year old.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
The psychopaths can be recognized easily just by their lack of introspection. They've often strong feeling of justice, but only of "their own justice".
UberGoober
2 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
Its interesting to think about. I recall reading about this concept years ago. One thing this article doesn't mention though is dimensionality. My understanding is that the forces in the black hole would some how "blow out" into other dimensions- at some point these forces would be stronger than the forces that "align" our universe in the traditional 3 (or 4) dimensions. Hence, you get sudden dimensional inflation and a spurt of matter/energy into the new "inner universe" in a different set of dimensions. This discussion of energy converting into a supply of new particles is a new twist to the idea for me though. Kind of interesting.

Granted, I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I'm not a physicist by any stretch. But if we do come up with tests that can validate extra-dimensionality that might be a step toward testing this theory. We better be careful with that though. It might be like ants digging through the wall of a dam. Just one more grain of sand... Oops!
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
This article applies the old Cartan-Sciama-Kibble modification of general relativity to the relativistic FLRW metric used in L-CDM model, which includes the torsion fields and which enables to describe the phenomena like the dark flux and dark flow which we can see at the boundary of the observable Universe. Does it mean that the Universe is formed with interior of black hole in general relativity sense? Nope, because in this model the singularity is at the surface of object, not in its center. The FLRW metric is black hole turned inside out - it just shares the common Riemann geometry with Schwarzchild metric.
elektron
1 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
I thought the lofty headline just seemed out of place with the pink water swirling out of a used mineral water bottle.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
One thing this article doesn't mention though is dimensionality
The Cartan's theory actually introduces extradimensions with spin field (Cartan's Lagrangian in six dimensional) - just in partial and proprietary way. Analogously, the water surface model which introduces the vorticity cannot be "just a two-dimensional" anymore, despite it's using the complex number in 2D dimensions only. The complex plane of spin field is what introduces the extradimensions of background (the extradimensions are labeled with red on this animation). The consistent theory of relativity in five and more dimensions would definitely work better, but it would be way complex too.
MorituriMax
3.3 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how life as we know it arrived on the scene all by itself.

There just isn't ANY scientifically accepted explanation that can account for the incredible complexity in even the smallest/simplest self-sustaining living organism. The laws of chemistry/physics will need to be suspended for life to arise spontaneously from a primordial chemical soup.
Well obviously all life is an hallucination then. Bravo, you have solved the problem. Oh wait, you don't exist.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
Spacetime torsion


Anyone using that term other than in a mocking manner should be blacklisted.


Why? Torsion is a component of the Riemann tensor of GR, so it already exist in the mathematical formulation,.. just assumed zero.
bewertow
4.7 / 5 (14) May 18, 2012
Why is there so many idiots in the comments section on this site? Seems like most of the commenters are either creationist trolls, "water ripples" crackpots, or anti-science dumbasses who think they know better than the guys with doctorates and decades of experience.
aroc91
3.9 / 5 (11) May 18, 2012
There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how life as we know it arrived on the scene all by itself.

There just isn't ANY scientifically accepted explanation that can account for the incredible complexity in even the smallest/simplest self-sustaining living organism. The laws of chemistry/physics will need to be suspended for life to arise spontaneously from a primordial chemical soup.


There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how God as we know it arrived on the scene all by itself.

There just isn't ANY scientifically accepted explanation that can account for the incredible complexity in even the smallest/simplest god. The laws of chemistry/physics will need to be suspended for God to arise spontaneously from a primordial diety soup.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (17) May 18, 2012
There are several problems with the descriptions here.
Among other things, again, the universe is not accelerating. Remember, the "proof" was that galaxies five billion years ago were further away than could be construed from recession velocities of galaxies closer in and, therefore, nearer in time. But that means the galaxies nearer in time are moving less quickly that comports witt the other galaxies. If there was acceleration, it has stopped and apparently reversed.
Also, the assertion about gravitational turning into mass is all but forbidden by physics. Gravitational energy expresses itself as a potential, and potential energy, even under relativity, is not related to mass. Even electrostatic energy doesn't act that way. Even photons are not energy, they carry energy that supposedly can be converted into mass. This is one reason the mass-energy connection is illegitimate.
ajr
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
Just like to add a few things. The universe IS expanding at an accelerating rate, the L-CDM model sufficiently explains why the period of inflation ended, there is very strong evidence to suggest dark energy actually exists (aka vacuum energy density). Furthermore, the imbalance between matter and antimatter is NOT explained by the decay of antimatter into dark matter (dark matter makes up approx 20% of universe, matter makes up approx 4%.)

In reply to julainpenrod, if you move two bodies close together (say Saturn and Jupiter) they gain K.E. from G.P.E. If particles do it, the excess K.E. can be made into another particle (if K.E. of a particle exceeds 0.511 MeV/c2, an electron may "appear), thereby increasing mass. So no, Einstein was not wrong.
rynox
1 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
Hey why not... make some outrageous claim with weak data. I think in alternate universes people are green.

There.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (12) May 18, 2012
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.


needs to re-read Aquinas.

Even if we do live in a recursive universe, it doesn't solve ANY fundamental problems, and it certainly doesn't describe the first cause.

There has to be an un-caused cause, and nesting universes inside of one another does not fundamentally solve or alter that fact.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (16) May 18, 2012
There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how God as we know it arrived on the scene all by itself.

There just isn't ANY scientifically accepted explanation that can account for the incredible complexity in even the smallest/simplest god. The laws of chemistry/physics will need to be suspended for God to arise spontaneously from a primordial diety soup.


There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how the universe as we know it allegedly arrived on the scene all by itself.

The laws of chemistry/physics were created by God in order for the universe to arise from his Will.
Josh Kinney
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed," or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed," or rotating counterclockwise.


That statement implies that the galaxies being observed are being observed from one point in space. Like saying if I look the left those gallaxies are rotating clockwise, the right counter clockwise, of course only based on my current position right now. The interesting part about that observation is that it essentially is saying that all galaxies are essentially spinning in the same direction, right? There more to it than that, or so I hope.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
The black hole theory certainly makes the right big bang idea more plausible, except it might be better described as a big rip. Anyway when a black hole reaches a critical size the vacuum energy outside the black hole rips it apart. This eliminates the recursion idea, there theoretically being only one critical size. Implying that all universes are nearly the same size. It's true black holes are being formed all the time, and eventually enough of them come together to form a new universe.
cyberCMDR
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
@Lurker2358
Since time essentially does not exist within a singularity, there is no time before the Big Bang. Without time, there is no prior or first cause. Time started with the bang.
cyberCMDR
5 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
@julianpenrod
If you think that gravitational energy can not be converted into mass, you'll have to try to convince Stephen Hawking about that. That was his explanation about how the matter came into being.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (18) May 18, 2012
To begin with, despite what ajr claims, from a physics point of view, potential energy of any form has nbo real value. Potential energy is measured only in the change of energy from one point to another. You can choose an arbitrary "zero", but, in reality, potneital energy is defined solely by a change in value from one condition to another. Too, potential energy can have negative values. And, as much as the mass energy interpretation is unwarranted, the relation\ship came only from a calculation of relativistic kinetic energy. But if the kinetic energy of an object goes above the equivalence for a particle, it doesn't create new particles. Remmeber, from the object's point of view, it sees its mass the same, it sees no new electrons in its substance! If the object doesn't see new electrons in itself, no one on the outside would, either!
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (21) May 18, 2012
There has to be an un-caused cause


No, there doesn't, that's stupid.

If you posit God as the "uncaused first cause" (which is a dumb as shit idea to begin with) then there is no reason I cannot claim the universe originated without cause.
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (19) May 18, 2012
cyberCMDR succumbs to a New World Order trap of celebrity. To cyberCMDR, invoking the name Stephen Hawking, even if what he is saying makes no sense, suddenly makes an assertion "true". This celebrity methodology works well among a population basically doing nothing special who have let themselves be talked out of actually doing anything special and, instead, glorying in what someone else does that is claimed to be "special". Incidentally, this doesn't necessarily work in an environment of p[rivation, only in an artificially commodity ridden society will you find individuals who don't mind toiling away, doing nothing special themselves, filling their time playing with endless toys. In such an envrionment, a group of individuals are accredited the title of "geniuses" and, even if they are lying, enough dim-witted, malleable people believe to provide a political base.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (13) May 19, 2012
There's one very irritating reality in the universe that undermines all this theoretical modeling. It cannot explain how the universe arrived on the scene all by itself.


Wrong again dummy:
http://www.youtub...Yw59ztyw
corymp
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
I will put myself on the chopping block and say this. us or any race as inteligent beings will never EVER figure out how the universe began. I'm defining universe as everything in every direction, dimension etc. Because theres no reason for it to exist. there will always be some action before it. just saying.

We do have to keep searching because it opens up so many opportunities in technology and such. and no theres no need for god either. we just are. and anything is possible. just keep breaking it down, learn, do cool stuff and progress.
prajwel
4.6 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
Gotta love these science nutjobs who make these wonderful testable predictions. NOT. This is roughly equivalent to quackery: torsion in 2 bottles implies torsion within universes. Wow. I'm beginning to think modern science is nothing but a faith-based system, just as dogmatic as religious zealotry. The same goes for string theory, the multiverse theory and a number of other mathematical 'tools' which don't really provide any bedrock understanding of reality, but rather offer up myriad modes of belief, which anybody can choose to subscribe to.

There seems to be no objective TRUTH anymore in science; and thus the very foundations of rationalism and scientific materialism are recognised as fallacies, subject to the whims and fancies of the observer.


science wouldn't have gotten this far without bold predictions. rather than going on a rant, you should point out how this is wrong
Bogey
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012
That was so my idea.
ewj
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Yes another incredible invention! But someone has to keep thinking sideways as we live in the post Einstein dark ages. His genius gave as many solutions and new physical mysteries. His legacy is he has dumped us into a 3D world proper time a dimension!!?. This is a very difficult cell to escape from. That is upto now a new book out called 'Absolute Relativity - Theory of everything' Easily explains that in fact Newton was on the right track. We do exist in a absolute primary dimension. This is the very expansion of the universe itself producing New Space second for second - INTO which we can have the luxury of the Euclid 3 spatial dimensions. And forget proper time this only causes us continued confusion and keeps the cell locked. Nature has no interest in Proper time it only deals in dimensions and equilibrium. 1. Expansion of the universe creates the space, If the expansion is not much more or less than 300,000kms atoms can associate from the background energy state...
ewj
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Measuring everything in 3 dimensions plus proper time will not get us out of the box. We only have the luxury of the 3D box because of matter. Without matter only the primary dimension exists. Forget NASA GP-B this only confirms that matter creates for us the 3 dimensions and Einsteins gravity field equations. This is the box and the dark ages of science. If string theory needs a construct it is the very expansion of the universe creating the Primary dimension. Which is obliged to be Time symmetrical, which means no Time as it is homogenous and no difference across the entire universe. Think of it as a battery if the PD fails ALL the lamps go out. Which means if the universe stops expanding all the atoms dissapear in the same second! If you wish to think in proper time. The universe expansion is the generator for the Prime Dimension, if it is not expanding too quickly in local universe then atoms will be formed. The universe will become universally extinct if the expansion fails
ewj
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
A box of chocolates has 3D it does not have proper time to define any 1 side of the box. So forget proper time. We must view the universe as 4 real dimensions - then we can get out of the cell which confines our imagination. BUT to repeat the 3D are a luxury provided by matter, The 3D can only be created when the expansion permits the conversion of energy and cohesion of the standard model no matter how many particles it has super symmetry or not!
ewj
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
Then the universe is not to end in Hawkings little big crunch this is not natures way. The universe will collapse in the absence of matter, because as soon as the expansion fails all matter will dissapear instantly - everywhere - simultaneously. You just have to consider Max Plank's constant to visualise that. The entire light of the universe will go out, all matter will be converted back into energy. This will probably drive the following expansion - and so on and so on. Think if it as a heart pumping. Expansion and contraction - expansion and contraction. Endlessly. each phase has a lifetime just like you and me. The lifetime of the universe is determined by the energy at the periphery pushing out into whatever is beyond the periphery. Once it reaches a state of equilibrium which it is obliged to do because that is what nature does. That will be the end! - of Everything. Every single atom in the universe will go pop! That release of energy will cause the next universe life.
PS3
1.3 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
That would make ours one huge black hole!
theon
1 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
Fortunately this theory claims to solve the dark matter riddle. So when that is indeed solved, quite likely in a very mundane manner, it rules out this outlandish idea.
ShotmanMaslo
3.5 / 5 (16) May 19, 2012
The problem with the guys who made the first comments is that they assume physicists work at the same level as described in this article. As if all they did was sit around and come up with descriptions that you can write in a news article.

They do not. This is the layman's explanation of deep mathematical concepts. They started with an interesting hypothesis, and the conclusions you just read about followed naturally from that. Open up any of his papers and see:

http://www.physic...ons.html


This. Critics should realise that unless you studied theoretical physics for a few years, you should just shut up and enjoy the article. Thats all you are qualified to do. Armchair scientists who have no idea but criticise either way are the worst.

As for the article, I think it is surely intriguing.
c0y0te
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
That crackpot Marko Rodin must be laughing now, because when physicists are using the same analogy regarding the black holes, then certainly he is "right" and more gullible people will attend his "lectures". :-P

http://www.youtub...jrA4aoKo
Terriva
1 / 5 (11) May 19, 2012
He even uses the same double bottle for vortex generation...;-) These "crackpots" are usually forgotten with mainstream. http://en.wikiped..._eponymy
It just illustrates, how mainstream converges to the natural philosophy, whenever it extrapolates our knowledge to the whole boundary of universe - in similar way, like the transverse waves are converging into longitudinal ripples during their scattering along water surface.
rah
2.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2012
This was a well written and well reasoned article. If you consider that any new answers coming in on this subject are going to at first seem unlikely, forcing yourself to keep your mind open for a few seconds extra will help you to understand new ideas. Doing otherwise is a sign of mental aging. Good work, Poplawski. I want to read more.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 19, 2012
This was a well written and well reason article.
This article contains a logical flaw. The model which Poplawski is using doesn't describe the common black hole, but a hypothetical inversed object, which we can observe nowhere in the nature. Such an object has only relativistic metric common with black holes, but it has singularity at its surface instead of its center. The complexity of math used just obscures this trivial but important subtlety before eyes of both laymans, bot the journalists, who are trying to interpret it.

If we will not think consequentially, we will end like the proponents of epicycle model of solar system, which worked seemingly well, but it described the inversed reality with its equations. This similarity isn't accidental at all: the people tend to repeat the same mistake again and again.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (17) May 19, 2012
the assertion about gravitational turning into mass is all but forbidden by physics. Gravitational energy expresses itself as a potential, and potential energy, even under relativity, is not related to mass. Even electrostatic energy doesn't act that way. Even photons are not energy, they carry energy that supposedly can be converted into mass. This is one reason the mass-energy connection is illegitimate.


It has been observed that two mutually orbiting neutron stars, very precisely, lose energy and are getting closer, which is accurately explained by the radiation of gravitational waves in GR

Gravitational energy has been incorporated into the GR energy (pseudo)tensor,...
http://en.wikiped...dotensor

If photons can impart momentum, and they can, the mass energy relation is correct.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
sub: Wisdom Cosmology Studies
Change the concept of Black-hole . Search cosmic function of the universe. Streamlined psychology makes no sense nor inspires spirit of Science.
The Origins- Science of cosmology vedas interlinks at your doorstep-Create east West Interaction and protect Copyrights. Welcome the spirit.
http://vidyardhic...ion.html
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) May 19, 2012
Among other things, again, the universe is not accelerating. Remember, the "proof" was that galaxies five billion years ago were further away than could be construed from recession velocities of galaxies closer in and, therefore, nearer in time. But that means the galaxies nearer in time are moving less quickly that comports witt the other galaxies. If there was acceleration, it has stopped and apparently reversed


I think you are leaving out a derivative. All of that has been taken into consideration via a quantity called the "cosmological scale factor",....

http://en.wikiped...smology)
hbryan50
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
Life was easier to start than people know: The wet/dry cycles of clay ACTUALLY PROMOTE THE ASSEMBLY OF AMINO ACIDS, THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE. Earth was it's own petrie dish when it came to creating life, no False Gods were necessary!
I, for one, believe the main story to be true.
NMvoiceofreason
2.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2012
The basic premise of this theory goes against the fundamental that Einstein declared, "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only exchanged into each other".

The effects of matter being sucked out of our universe into another can easily be predicted. The black hole would lose mass. The Universe would lose mass. The effects of the black hole's gravity would diminish. The effects of gravity in the Universe would diminish.

Further, entropy would require that this destruction of information would be irreversible.

As others have pointed out, getting out of the gravity well of the singularity is a problem on BOTH sides. Numerous holes in the theory.
Kapricious
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
As a layman, I have long been stuck on the behavioral similarities between a singularity and black holes. I have never understood how these two seemingly identical phenomenon have been largely ignored and/or regarded as irrelevant to one another. Maybe it's simpleton thinking, but my personal hunch is that the big bang's singularity was the result of another universes black hole becoming so massive that it literally tore that universe, leaking into a new void, creating another one (ours). With the advancements the multiverse theory has made, it only seems to become a more and more plausible explanation-at least in my own mind.

To those crying about testability: No one is saying this is FACT! It's OBVIOUSLY just mere SPECULATION at this point and the scientists involved are obviously VERY well aware of that. Sharing a potentially paradigm shifting hypothesis is not anti-scientific at all; but complaining about this completely normal behavior certainly is.
winthrom
4.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
I think that this concept is self limiting on the number of nested black hole (BH) universes (BHU) that can occur. The mass/energy within the event horizon of a black hole does not increase in and of itself, but only from the inflow of mass/energy from outside the BH. Thus if insufficient mass/energy is within a BHU to create a nested BH, there are no more BHUs inside this BH. The Hawking radiation evaporates the BHs at a rate inverse to the diameter of the event horizon. I.e., smaller diameter represents greater surface area vs. volume (thus mass/energy) inside. Thus, BHs of insufficient size disappear.
Our BHU is colossal so the universe we came from must be humongous. The torsion that accounts for matter/anti-matter/dark-matter might explain the other issues we are finding with the standard model and gravity as we know it. A lot of this needs an experiment based on a prediction of this theory.
ThePhonz
2 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
well ... just remember that a "round world" was once thought to be nonsense, among many many other things. Who cares whether they are "right" or "wrong" - most scientific research turns out to be a dead end (or nonsense). But so what - Relativity and the related scientists that also produced "all the atomic stuff" was originally thought to be nonsense, too.

Shitead
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Back in 1986, Isaac Asimov postulated that our universe is a black hole, and by extension, every black hole is a separate universe. His observations and conclusions are more compelling than Poplawski's.
tkjtkj
4.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
This is roughly equivalent to quackery: torsion in 2 bottles implies torsion within universes.


The author did not deduce anything from his 'model' of two bottles. They were merely aides to comprehending his points. You are wrong to think otherwise. Sorry to pop your untenable bubble, friend, but science lives.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (12) May 19, 2012
Intuitively speaking, even the huge black hole cannot contain extension of space-time larger, than it corresponds its mass. The critical density for closure of the universe is 5×10-18 kilogram km-3. On black hole as massive, as the mass in the whole Universe could contain as much of space-time, as the whole Universe.
Black hole of the mass of the Sun (2×10^30 kg) therefore shouldn't contain more space, than 10^50 km3.
Russkiycremepuff
1.2 / 5 (11) May 19, 2012
I do not know if it has already been mentioned, but it may be possible to have multi-universes within multi-Black Holes if each universe were a step up or a step down into another dimension of its own. In that way, each universe is not necessarily smaller or bigger than its parent or "child". And, in this way, multi-dimensions might exist ad infinitum, possibly with matter being drained from one to the next similar to the bottle experiment in the article, and maybe a Coriolis Effect.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
@Noumenon said:
It has been observed that two mutually orbiting neutron stars, very precisely, lose energy and are getting closer, which is accurately explained by the radiation of gravitational waves in GR

You typically come across as exceptionally intelligent and reasonable, so I'm going to request you to take another look at that statement, because there is no proof - at all - that what we've decided to label "two mutually orbiting neutron stars" actually are. That's just an assumption, and while widely accepted/believed, it is not something safe or reasonable to assume as "fact" upon which other hypotheses can be built. And that's concerning the part we can actually see. Gravity waves are even worse - we have no evidence at all that there even is such a thing.

As far as your earlier point is concerned, RIC=0 has long been an issue, and I believe impossible to resolve in a comment thread.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
Yawn! This article is old "news"!
I first read about this idea in a New Scientist article way back 2 years ago. http://www.newsci...rse.html

The author *described* that it is not new. Wanna re-read??
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
*___
**___
***___
****___

In above asterisks and underlines, I attempt to explain my meaning. Asterisks are necessary to illustrate the steps of new dimensions related to each new universe that is born of previous universe in previous Black Hole. A new dimension should be necessary to house each new universe in its own space.
In a previous page, someone had mentioned that old universe would collapse as new one is made. I do not think that is so, unless ALL matter/energy is drained from it. Only then, previous universe could collapse as everything drains from it.
So it may be possible that universe we live in is one of many, many dimensions behind us or in front of ours. I do like this idea since it seems less chaotic and disorderly.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
it may be possible that universe we live in is one of many, many dimensions behind us or in front of ours. I do like this idea since it seems less chaotic and disorderly
This idea follows from chaotic and disorderly model of Universe too. Dense aether theory models the Universe with nested density fluctuations of hypothetical infinitely dense gas..
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
..in the early universe or in black holes spacetime torsion would manifest itself as a repulsive force that counters the attractive gravitational force.. .. eventually torsion would become very strong and prevent matter from compressing into a point of infinite density. .. The increasing numbers of particles with spin would result in higher levels of spacetime torsion. The repulsive torsion would stop the collapse and would create a "big bounce" like a compressed beach ball that snaps outward... the torsion mechanism suggests an astonishing scenario: every black hole would produce a new, baby universe inside. .. torsion could also explain the observed imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe.
Such a comment would be banned at most "serious" physical forums as a pure crackpottery just before few years... IMO the mainstream physics didn't invented nothing, which we couldn't read at the various blogs and 2nd grade webs already. It's just a pile of random ideas..
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (13) May 19, 2012
Noumenon uses a common New World Order technique of non argument, "disproving" my statements by "proving" an entirely different statement. Neutron stars, any objects in mutual orbit, can spiral into each other, but they don't need general relativity. The immense gravity of neutron stars cnan cause even a starquake upset the system, or their incredible magnetic fields can affect each other in such a way that they will go out of stable orbit.
But none of this involves gravitational potential energy turning into matter! When something falls, it doesn't give oiff a shower of elementary particles!
And including gravitational energy into a tensor representative form does not involve gravitational energy turning into matter, either.
And if something can impart momentum to something else, it has absolutely nothing to doi with matter and energy being equivalent. Newton had exchange of momentum without once needing to invoke matter-energy equivalence!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (11) May 19, 2012
And the "cosmological scale factor" has absolutely nothing to do with the acceleration of distant galaxies. It was developed years before even the purported acceleration was claimed. It is supposed to be a value that varies with time, yet always yields a constant Hubble Constant! And, certainlly, the Hubble Constant out to five billion lights yeras remains the same, but, past that, as devotees of the fraudulent acceleration keep insisting, the Hubble Constant is changing! But the cosmological scale factor must yield a constant term! So it cannot have any connection to the issue.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (12) May 19, 2012
That would make ours one huge black hole!


Scale is entirely relative.
rs79_vrx_net
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2012
If the math is self-consistent then it's not impossible. I don't understand how somebody that doesn't understand the math and thinks thinks of it terms of pop bottles is qualified to comment.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
"In a previous page, someone had mentioned that old universe would collapse as new one is made. I do not think that is so, unless ALL matter/energy is drained from it. Only then, previous universe could collapse as everything drains from it.
So it may be possible that universe we live in is one of many, many dimensions behind us or in front of ours. I do like this idea since it seems less chaotic and disorderly." - Russkiy -

I wish to add to this, that previous universe which formed Black Hole from whence our own universe emerged into its own dimension, had also its very own dimension that did not necessarily collapse also along with its universe when all matter/energy drains from its universe into our own universe. The previous dimension itself may remain in existence even without housing its universe with matter/energy, and could possibly be used again and again without self destruction.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
- cont'd -
In this way, previous dimensions without their universes could be used again and again, and thusly brand new dimension may not need to be formed to house newer universe. I do not know if this may have to do with law of Conservation of Energy. A recyclable reality seems to be much preferred than the example of ad infinitum creation of newer dimensions for house of each new universe.
I hope I am clarifying well.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
If the math is self-consistent then it's not impossible. I don't understand how somebody that doesn't understand the math and thinks thinks of it terms of pop bottles is qualified to comment.
Math is indeed self-consistent, but it's application may not. I cannot understand, how somebody, who believes in object with singularity at its surface can believe, that this model describes the Universe inside of black hole. Just the complexity and nontransparence of these models enables to deduce the logical nonsenses about it. After all, we all still remember the self-consistent epicycle model of solar system of Galileo era and/or self-consistent derivation of hollow Earth model with Euler. At both cases the seemingly consistent formal model described the reality from its opposite side, i.e. with opposite space-time curvature - now this situation just repeats with the black hole model of the Universe. It's because the formal models are insensitive to the topological inversion of space.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
During scattering of the surface ripples at the water surface the transverse surface ripples scatter into longitudinal waves in the same way both toward small scales (Brownian noise), both toward large scales (gravitational waves). The observer of such scattering may not be aware, in which side the dimensional scale he is actually residing, because the formal model of this scattering may be the same at both cases - it's just topologically inverted. Both sides of the resulting manifold are separated with topological singularity - so you cannot derive the smooth transition of one model into another in rigorous way without introduction of very high number of dimensions. The same problem prohibits the rigorous reconciliation of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, which are based on mutually dual perspectives.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
The general rule is, the community of physicists will usually adopt such a model, which will be supported with largest number of physicists. Such a model is usually supported because it can provide the highest number of jobs (..the "fun", "enjoyment" for people loving their job..) and occupation opportunities for physicists. The well established model has a number of equations and formal approached developed, which makes relatively more easy to combine it into new publications and to get a new job (from the same reason the people are moving into cities). The switching to more rational, but the less occupation friendly paradigm is therefore always bit of pain for all people involved, until it provides a sufficiently strong background. The relative "success" of string theory is just given with its job providing potential, which strongly contrasts with the fact, this theory has still no testable predictions after forty years. The ignorance of cold fusion findings has the same social roots
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) May 19, 2012
That's just an assumption, and while widely accepted/believed, it is not something safe or reasonable to assume as "fact" upon which other hypotheses can be built. And that's concerning the part we can actually see. Gravity waves are even worse - we have no evidence at all that there even is such a thing.


What else could it be but a double pulsar orbiting each other? Is there a more reasonable explanation? If not it would be a coincidence that the lose of energy can be accounted for with gravity waves. Pulsars are very precise, like time-piece precise.
While it's true that we really have to observe gravitational waves to prove they exist, the idea earned Hulse and Taylor a noble prize in explaining the above mentioned binary systems lose of energy,... so at minimum based on observation, it's a reasonable possibility.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
The AWT doesn't deny, that the gravitational waves do exist - they're just considered superluminal in this model, because they're spreadin in extradimensions - so they're manifesting with CMBR noise in our space-time. Therefore the general relativity can still predict the speed of energy radiation via gravitational waves correctly, but these waves will remain unobservable with contemporary gravitational detectors. Even better, the physicists involved are spending their lives and huge money of tax payers for filtering the gravitational waves out from their measurements, because they're considering them as annoying noise, interfering the observation of the "true gravitational waves".

Actually it would be a quite funny situation, if we wouldn't pay the billions of dollars/Euros for it. Such a fun becomes the most expensive entertainment in the human history after then.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
The AWT model of water surface model of space-time provides quite straghtforward model for imagining the true nature of gravitational waves, but these ideas aren't new at all. The physicists KNOW about problematic nature of gravitational waves in general relativity from the very beginning of this concept. All big relativists had a problem with gravitational waves: Einstein didn't believe in it, Eddington didn't believe in it, Weyl didn't believe in it, etc. But they were outnumbered with 2nd grade physicists, who did see an opportunity for testing of gravitational waves and for building of another type of detectors. We should realize, the GWs are artifact of linearized schoolbook models of relativity - so that the various 2nd grade theorists tend to support them more, than the people with consequential rigorous thinking.

The employment program simply won - again...
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
If the math is self-consistent then it's not impossible. I don't understand how somebody that doesn't understand the math and thinks thinks of it terms of pop bottles is qualified to comment.


Most people are not qualified to comment, but they are too ignorant to understand the degree of their own ignorance.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
The problematics of gravitational waves (GWs) is actually way more complex even in context of dense aether theory from at least two reasons: At first, the GWs correspond the underwater sound waves at the water surface, which manifest like the noise at the water surface. Under rare condition even these sound waves could be observable at the water surface, because these waves can propagate like transverse waves trough so called SOFAR channel in underwater. At the moment, when such channel would penetrate the water surface, we could detect (at least theoretically) the transverse component of that noise. As such gradient in Universe can serve the surface of dark matter fibers connecting the galaxies. If some transverse GW's exist, they could propagate along surfaces of these fibers in speed, which would be still superluminal, but with harmonic component. IMO it's rather BS, but it illustrates, that the model of real situations may not be so schematic from perspective of any theory.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Noumenon asked:
What else could it be but a double pulsar orbiting each other? Is there a more reasonable explanation?

One hypothesis - and let me stress that it is only a hypothesis, albeit one I *believe* (there's that word again) is a more reasonable explanation, is that it is a resonant circuit in energized plasma.

If not it would be a coincidence that the lose of energy can be accounted for with gravity waves.

Not at all - not a coincidence, and it can't be "accounted for with gravity waves" because we know nothing about them because (as far as we know) they don't exist. Therefore they're a magic wand. They're a fudge factor. You can account for anything with them.
PoppaJ
1.4 / 5 (10) May 19, 2012
This is a difficult idea. An explanation of how a black hole can exist in a black hole,in a black hole, in a black hole, whould need to be provided. Sounds like a crazy infinity theory to me.
PoppaJ
1 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
Sounds like a crazy infinity theory to me. A universe with a black hole in it, with a universe in it, with a black hole in it, with a universe in it, with a black hole in it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
At second, in AWT the photons are solitons of transverse waves and they do have their mass and gravity field too. After all, even in linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field. This fact may serve as a rational base of various ideas of scalar waves, radiated with Caduceus coil and another systems. But it means too, when some star is radiating an energy in form of photons, it radiates the gravitational waves too. And this portion of gravitational waves propagates along surface of photons itself, i.e. with speed of light from macroscopic perspective. So in many cases the gravitational waves can evade the attention, because they're radiated away in form of photons, i.e. like the component of their particle-like character. This component is the more pronounced, the higher energy these photons have, i.e. the gamma and X-ray radiation.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
Sounds like a crazy infinity theory to me. A universe with a black hole in it, with a universe in it, with a black hole in it, with a universe in it, with a black hole in it.
We, as a human observers can probably never prove it with direct observations - on the other hand, the assumption, that every infinity should stop somehow at some level is ad-hoced as well. For example, if we accept, that the evolution of Universe is cyclical, which reason it should have for the breaking of this cycle? At certain sufficiently general/global level of thinking, the assumption of infinity is actually the simplest possible assumption. Which is the reason, for example, why Einstein originally believed in infinite flat Universe - it was simply the most straightforward assumption of his time - and it actually still is.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
For me the assumption of the Universe beginning is antropocentric and it brings more questions than answers. The actual reason of why this paradigm is so persisting is both religious (the thinking of western society is infected with Christian concept of creation), both socio-economical again: it provides more jobs places and opportunities for research, than the plain assumption of infinite universe. The bare fact, the concept of Universe origin doesn't solve the question of Universe existence at all, but it brings another questions about the nature of this origin is actually advantage of this model: it enables to pay more theorists for solving of artificial problems. This is why I'm saying, if we want to understand, how the Universe is working, we should rather understand first, how the human society is working.
lboxer
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012
I find Poplawski's premise exciting, and a welcome change of pace from holography, branes and higher (and lower) dimensions. It's about as testable as finding a string, so at this point that's not even an issue. His idea is logical. If we come from a sigularity, what reason is there for other universes not to do likewise?

If there comes a time when the information on the horizon of a black hole can be pieced together into a coherent story, it may give us a clue to what's going on inside.

Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 19, 2012
His idea is logical. If we come from a singularity, what reason is there for other universes not to do likewise?

Black hole doesn't come FROM a singularity - it ENDS in singularity instead. You missed the time arrow in similar way, like many other people here, who are just projecting their ideas and secret wishes into reality (including the author of article). The science doesn't work so.
cyberCMDR
not rated yet May 20, 2012
@julianpenrod
I don't know about a New World Order of celebrity, but I do understand the scientific process. Scientific papers are peer reviewed, and Hawkings' work is no exception. As I am not a physicist, I will defer to a world renowned expert like Hawkings.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
By the way, it is interesting to note that conventionally black hole was explained as "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter. But the problem is how could it is something like that, may be this is the reason why Einstein did not believe in the black hole. Below is talking about a rational view of the black hole.

http://www.vacuum...mid=7=en
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
Attention "theoretical" physicists: you screw up the perceived certainty of other physical sciences by referring to mathematically valid, but untested hypotheses as "theory". Please stop it.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) May 20, 2012
but my personal hunch is that the big bang's singularity was the result of another universes black hole becoming so massive that it literally tore that universe, leaking into a new void, creating another one - Kapricious(ours).


As mention by NMvoiceofreason, there is the problem of entropy, which would predict that a big bang singularity is fundamentally different than a BH singularity, in that the former would have minimal entropy while the latter would have maximum.

It appears that the above 'universe in a BH' idiea avoids singularities, calling them 'physically impossible singularities',.. but the entropy problem would still exist, no? Also, why consider it physically impossible because the equations break down at a singularity?
UberGoober
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2012
So if the LHC manages to make a tiny tear in the fabric of space/time, the compressed contents at the center of our universe's parent black hole may come erupting through. Lets test it!
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
big bang singularity is fundamentally different than a BH singularity, in that the former would have minimal entropy while the latter would have maximum
This is correct point. It's just consequence of the fact, the black hole has singularity inside, whereas the above Universe model has a singularity at its surface and it BEGINS with singularity, whereas the black hole ENDS with singularity. It's reversed black hole - I'd call it a "white hole", but this concept described different objects anyway (something like the quasars or naked singularities). It's simply something, which doesn't exist inside of our Universe anyway, so we cannot apply ideas of nested fractals to it.

I indeed understand, where is the source of this conceptual problem, because dense aether model describes it too - but it doesn't change the fact, the above formal model doesn't describes the common black hole.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
Dense aether model of AWT describes the observable Universe in very simple way like the water surface, which is observed with its own ripples. At the certain distance all ripples get scattered and blurred into underwater Brownian noise. This is how the AWT describes the "initial" singularity.

But AWT is based on random Universe model and there is no good reason for to have the water surface completely flat. So we should consider, the space-time modeled with water surface can have density fluctuations and inside of these density fluctuations its visibility scope is limited too: the surface waves are getting scattered , so we cannot see inside of these dense places in the same way, like we cannot see the unlimited distance. This is what the black hole actually means in dense aether model.

Does it imply, the Universe is formed with such a black hole? The most probable option is, we are living somewhere at the boundary of some giant fluctuations of aether density, not just inside of it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
We can even have some observational indicia for it, because the Doppler's anisotropy of the CMBR noise indicates, whole the observable Universe sits at the gradient slope, penetrating whole the observable Universe. It's given with the fact, we are living in gradient driven reality - so that the largest and smallest structure observable inside of our Universe will be some gradient too. Not the center of some more complex object. If you appear somewhere inside of random landscape, then the option, you will appear at some hill or crater is less probable, then the other options. This insight gives the observable Universe the hyperbolic geometry, not parabolic or spherical one or something similar.

The AWT is based on solely probabilistic perspective: we should always ask, which geometry or placement is most probable and we should choose it as an introductory postulate.
IronhorseA
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2012

So we may live in a recursive universe? I would like to subscribe to this guys newsletter, but not if I have to wear a hat.

Oxymoron

if our universe was inside a blackhole that means that blackhole is in another universe? so a universe in a universe is impossible

http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68


You forget that infinite in 4 dimensional spacetime doesn't affect other dimensions which may or may not exist. For one infinite universe to exist 'within' another they cannot share all of their 4 dimensions, at least one must be different. Technically, however, one would be better saying that the two universes intersect at the black hole in the parent universe.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) May 20, 2012
What else could it be but a double pulsar orbiting each other? Is there a more reasonable explanation?


One hypothesis - and let me stress that it is only a hypothesis, albeit one I *believe* (there's that word again) is a more reasonable explanation, is that it is a resonant circuit in energized plasma.


Do you object to neutron stars and black holes as being possible? Did Charles Bruce reject them? If so, what mechanism other than electron or neutron degenerousy pressure, would prevent a collapse the respective two states of a star,... pressure in GR being a source of gravity also, at some point the above mechanism would not prevent collapse,.. right? If so, neutron stars and BH should be prevalent.
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
A certain perspective exists, which maps the interior of black hole into its exterior. This idea basically says, when you come close to the black hole, then its event horizon will expand, until it will cover the whole sky. In this moment the strange thing would happen: whole the observable universe will shrink into tiny black holes behind our back and you'll appear inside of new Universe, sitting inside of former black hole.

Whole this perspective is really nice and it would fit the idea, that our Universe sits inside of such black hole too - but its physically nonrealistic, because you would evaporate during this travel. It's just application of formal geometric model, not the physical model.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) May 20, 2012
If not it would be a coincidence that the lose of energy can be accounted for with gravity waves.

Not at all - not a coincidence, and it can't be "accounted for with gravity waves" because we know nothing about them because (as far as we know) they don't exist. Therefore they're a magic wand. They're a fudge factor. You can account for anything with them.


General relativity has alot of observational support. Since c is the limiting universal velocity, according to GR, high velocity dynamical gravitational events, like orbiting neutron stars, should create gravity waves.

Since two orbiting neutron stars are extremely precise, observations are like wise precise, and so it would seem coincidental that the lose of energy of the system, would be just that as would be expected from gravity waves.

It's an indirect validation of the idea, which comes from the theory itself, not some arbitrary fudge-factor.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
Here is a simple scheme of the AWT model, which I just drew for PO readers. The Universe is sorta "reversed" black hole in it. You can apply a similar relativistic model for it, but it's not a black hole in relativity sense.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
General relativity has alot of observational support.
Epicycles had a alot of observational support as well (and they still have). Yet they describe the inversed reality. Mathematicians can be imbeciles, but laymans should keep their healthy sense for reality: they're paying the mathematicians, not vice-versa.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) May 20, 2012
General relativity has alot of observational support.
Epicycles had a alot of observational support as well (and they still have). Yet they describe the inversed reality. Mathematicians can be imbeciles, but laymans should keep their healthy sense for reality: they're paying the mathematicians, not vice-versa.


But epicycles collapsed under its own weight and eventually failed to explain observations. As you indicate, Epicycles had no physical bases, but relativity does. Of course Einstein was a pure physicist and not a mathematician,.. he had to search for a mathematical bases in which to formulate his physics. In fact differential geometry developed further on account of its use in GR, not the other way around.

There is no need to replace GR until it a) fails to explain observations, and b) there is an alternative that is 'backward compatible', and can predict further things which GR cannot.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
epicycles had no physical bases, but relativity does
This stance is relative and dependent on the scope of technical capabilities and the human understanding of reality. At the moment, when this scope expanded outside of solar system significantly, then the people realized, that the motion of planets fits this extrinsic perspective better, than the older insinuator perspective.
There is no need to replace GR
Nobody wants to replace it here...;-) It's just certain model, describing the dispersive reality of dense aether model, but it can be applied from both intrinsic, both extrinsic perspectives. At the moment, when we have huge number of these perspectives (like at the case of huge array of vacuum fluctuations), then the formal model of relativity simply cannot give reliable answers to all questions, which such system generates and you should invent some more general theory. The AWT deals with emergent geometry of many space-time curvatures, each of which fits the GR well
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
It's similar evolution, like the evolution of programming languages. At the very beginning the computer specialists were required to understand the machine code, assembly language and all its subtleties for being "productive" in computer programming. But today we are handling the pieces of machine code as such and we are combining them like LEGO bricks in form of built-in functions of high-level languages. The priority scope has therefore changed: nobody is required today to learn the machine language for being productive in Java or .NET. Best of all, this high-level perspective is way more accessible for laymans: you can start to invent reliable physical models with it immediately, without bothering with pile of math. Actually, the more you'll rely to the strictly deterministic formal models, the more you're risking, you'll apply them outside of their validity scope and the resulting predictions will become unphysical.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
The high level perspective of models doesn't mean, you should remain uninformed and silly. Actually, for being productive in Java or .NET you're not required to think in complex way of deterministic linear code (where only trained mathematicians can excel) - but you're required to know about number of high level functions. The original assembly code contained some forty instructions, today processors support about two hundreds of instructions. But the latest .NET 4.0 version consists of nearly seventy-thousands of intrinsic functions and methods. You can develop new applications a way faster with it, but your memory must become more effective, than at the case of assembly language programming.
Fortunately, the situation is not as bad, as it appears, because these high-level languages are object oriented and they're hierarchical. The syntax highlighting and code advisors of programming environments enable to reduce the knowledge of this wast landscape to few principles and object types.
Terriva
1 / 5 (11) May 20, 2012
The dense model of AWT is hierarchical as well and it's based on the fact, at the case of more complex particle fluctuations the behavior of fluctuations at the inner levels of nested hierarchy becomes virtually indistinguishable from random noise, so you can ignore them and consider them as the same fuzzy particles, like the particles of aether itself. The observable Universe is not so complex, as it appears at the first look, because the effective number of nested interactions is always limited in it. This explains, why we can model with single particle/emergent simulation wide range of quite complex phenomena. This greatly limits the overall complexity of the modeling of physics. We just cannot write them down at the paper in form of some deterministic formal model. The question is, what such deterministic publication would be good for - and who should pay for it.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2012
Having written extensively in assembler, intel and Motorola, and object C+ +, ... I still don't get your analogy here. It doesn't translate to physics, IMO, ... becoming more and more far removed from the mnemonic instruction set,.. is becoming more and more removed from reality and verification,... that is to say becoming more qualitative and less quantitative. Efficientcy is a good thing in developing software, but not in developing physical models of reality.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
is becoming more and more removed from reality and verification
Nope, because the strictly deterministic models are limited with the same restrictions, which enable you to approximate the complex reality with simpler models in AWT. The formal models become poorly conditioned and unstable, when they're dealing with more than nine dimensions and four levels of nested hierarchy. This applies both to the numerical models, both to the analytical ones. After all, this is the reason, why even simple system of five to six gravitating bodies becomes incalculable with formal math. For example, the string theory is limited to ten/eleven dimensions from the very same reason above given - and so far it behaves like very complex and expensive random generator, providing landscape of 10^500 possible solution. This is nothing special...

The adherence to formal models therefore not only limits the effectiveness of physical modeling, but it can even become a brake of the further evolution of it.
SteveL
4.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
If the math is self-consistent then it's not impossible. I don't understand how somebody that doesn't understand the math and thinks thinks of it terms of pop bottles is qualified to comment.
Most people are not qualified to comment, but they are too ignorant to understand the degree of their own ignorance.

Actually if we aren't too blinded by our own brilliance (ego), we should eventually realize that the more we learn the less we seem to know. More knowledge brings the ability to ask more questions. We are all ignorant of far more than we have the capacity to understand. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, unless we are satisfied with it.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (10) May 20, 2012
we should eventually realize that the more we learn the less we seem to know
I'd say, it's not so bad with the evolution of human understanding. This evolution is just limited with psychosocial feedback: when physicists could find really simple solution of their complex problems, then the most of them becomes redundant. So they tend to ignore it as a single man, as Robert Wilson a former president of Americal Physical Society recognized and named before years. The contemporary physics is an overgrown remnant of relatively rich years of Cold War era, when the physicists were considered important for the national security and it changed into Ponzi scheme, which fights for its survival with less and less morally acceptable ways.
TopCat22
2.6 / 5 (5) May 20, 2012
This means there is only one universe with all of the black hole universes in it. The question then becomes how deep does the rabbit hole go in one way ... and how far are we that rabbit hole the other way with all of our universes blackholes being universes themselves? The Universe is a Matryoshka Doll!
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 20, 2012
This means there is only one universe with all of the black hole universes in it.
In dense aether model there is no reason to believe in it. The Universe appears like the random fractal cloud in this model: you can always find a larger fluctuations in it, then the whole observable observable Universe, in which we are residing right now. This part is just unobservable with respect to the limited scope of view allowed for human creatures. If we would change whole observable portion of Universe into network of gravitational wave detectors, we could probably see a way larger piece of it, including the black holes, the size of whose would exceed our portion of Universe comfortably.
These gravitational detectors should just work differently, then the existing ones: they should monitor the changes in CMBR noise intensity, not to seek for some regular waves in it.
winthrom
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2012
One should realize that the math constructs that makes these different hypothesis possible are merely models of the theories, which are possible world views without proof. These are logically self consistent and yet are not in agreement with other hypothesis. In the dark ages there were math models with mechanical devices using those models that put the earth at the center of the solar system. They were very complicated, but they predicted many astronomical events. The current crop of universe math models are also predictive (some are) and seem to resolve many questions. This is a "work in progress" for humanity. I wish us luck.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
This means there is only one universe with all of the black hole universes in it. The question then becomes how deep does the rabbit hole go in one way ... and how far are we that rabbit hole the other way with all of our universes blackholes being universes themselves? The Universe is a Matryoshka Doll!


My grandmother has collection of 20 Matryoshka dolls. All are beautiful and very delicate and I was not allowed to touch them as a child. The wood of each piece is quite thin to accommodate the next, down to the smallest one. But I would not compare the hypothesis of universe inside a Black Hole with another BH inside that second universe which also contains BH with a third universe, etc.. to a Matryoshka doll. Each piece of doll is smaller than the larger piece that smaller piece was inside of; but I do not believe that each universe becomes smaller and smaller.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
I think of possibility that the matter from the BH would pour into a new dimension where the matter would then disperse and spread or expand into the space of the new dimension to create new universe. I do not believe that the new dimension is smaller than the one from whence came the matter/energy. I would say that they are equal size potential, depending on the amount of matter that is poured into it.(the new space).
I might even compare BH to a coal chute that empties coal from truck into house basement.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
But if such is true, then I would have to believe that the BH itself must be the size of the universe where it sits, and then it would have to contain ALL of the matter of universe where it resides and that it has swallowed already the contents and is almost ready to burst. It would be most massive, and because of its size, there exists potential for new dimension within BH that is same size as the one before it.
This might be in keeping with Singularity of Big Bang. The size of BH would be crucial to its forming and retaining such amount of matter. Small Black Holes cannot be source of new dimension and new universe, imo. It would be much more logical that all Black Holes join together through mutual attraction and form one massive BH.
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (6) May 20, 2012


I don't buy it.

If this is actually the case, then the old aphorism that "an inch is as good as a mile" is the literal truth, and the entire (so far) visible universe is just one infinitude within an infinity of infinities.

I am much more reconciled to the idea that the observable universe is the result of the actual impossibility of the existence of nothing --that the state or condition of "nothingness" is not, and can not exist-- i.e. that the philosophical conundrum is indistinguishable from the observed reality.

Unfortunately, all our science has to be built upon our ability to observe our universe, but there are --at least currently-- very real limits to our powers of observation/detection at both very large scales and very small, at both ends of which our powers of observation vanish.

That problem has to be definitively solved before any real weight can be attributed to Poplawski's musings.

Russkiycremepuff
1.4 / 5 (10) May 20, 2012
- cont'd -
But, if that is the case, then it might be possible that there was no "Big Bang" explosion or inflation. Instead, at proper moment of opportunity, all matter spewed or poured out of massive BH Singularity through a channel, into new dimension and space to form brand new universe. It may be that old universe then collapses while new universe inflates.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
"Unfortunately, all our science has to be built upon our ability to observe our universe, but there are --at least currently-- very real limits to our powers of observation/detection at both very large scales and very small, at both ends of which our powers of observation vanish." - Caliban -

That is, indeed, the problem for humanity through the eyes of the scientists. But. there is the improbability factor since the Poplawski has favored us with such hypothetical conjecture. There is 50 - 50 chance that it is true. But who can say with absolute conviction that it is not?
Urgelt
3.3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2012
Benni generously shared this insight with us: "...infinity by definition has no boundaries, big or small)."

Alas, the insight is flawed. Bounded infinities are a perfectly ordinary concept in mathematics. Here is a wonderful example: pi, the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. When this calculation is carried out, an infinite, non-repeating string of numbers to the right of the decimal point appears.

This is a true infinity. But it's bounded: it only extends in one direction and does not contain within it anything but the string of numbers arising from a specific calculation. It does not, for example, contain my lunch.

Another bounded infinity: a straight line extending forever, also lunchless.

We do not know if the universe - or multiverse, if there is such a thing - is infinite. But as concepts, infinities exist. One conceptual infinity - "everything" - is possibly unbounded. But that's not the only infinity in town, and all the others have boundaries.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 21, 2012
Your analogy to pi is good example of micro-infinity, as numbers placed to left of decimal point would be macro-infinity for the getting infinitely larger. I do not think there is such accommodation in pi for the left of decimal point. A multi-directional pi that goes forward and backward also, might be impossible due to set volume of initial space. Only one direction seems more feasible to me. But I am not mathematician.
Husky
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2012
the problem remains that a black hole remains a black box with a tight lock that you cannot relly look into, changes are 50/50 that schroedingers cat is in there.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) May 21, 2012
Your analogy to pi is good example of micro-infinity, as numbers placed to left of decimal point would be macro-infinity for the getting infinitely larger. I do not think there is such accommodation in pi for the left of decimal point. A multi-directional pi that goes forward and backward also, might be impossible due to set volume of initial space. Only one direction seems more feasible to me. But I am not mathematician.


"Infinity" has no parameters. If you think it does, provide us with some details on where to locate the boundary of something "infinite" in size, or if you have an equation found in Einsteinian GR I'll accept that too.
IronhorseA
2.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2012
Your analogy to pi is good example of micro-infinity, as numbers placed to left of decimal point would be macro-infinity for the getting infinitely larger. I do not think there is such accommodation in pi for the left of decimal point. A multi-directional pi that goes forward and backward also, might be impossible due to set volume of initial space. Only one direction seems more feasible to me. But I am not mathematician.


"Infinity" has no parameters. If you think it does, provide us with some details on where to locate the boundary of something "infinite" in size, or if you have an equation found in Einsteinian GR I'll accept that too.

The sum of 1/(2^n) for n=0 to infinity is an infinite string of additions. However it has a finite sum. Also the number line is another example of bounded and unbounded infinities. There are an infinite number of integers, which is unbounded, but an infinite number of points between any two integers, which is bounded.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (11) May 21, 2012
I am not mathematician, therefore I cannot provide the equation if such exists. I referred to the analogy of pi as only going in one linear direction, to the right of decimal point.

Thank you to IronhorseA for explanation. I think of the figure 8 or the circle as a means for infinity.
spickets
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2012
So black holes would be where different dimensions splice together?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) May 22, 2012
I am not mathematician, therefore I cannot provide the equation if such exists. I referred to the analogy of pi as only going in one linear direction, to the right of decimal point.

Thank you to IronhorseA for explanation. I think of the figure 8 or the circle as a means for infinity.


How does a geometric configuration provide the means for "infinity"? If you can see the geometric configuration, that means you can see "a boundary", and if you can observe a boundary it follows by definition the configuration is not "infinite".

And by the way, it is not possible to travel "infinitely" on the surface of any geometric configuration, there is not enough mass available in the universe that can be transformed in energy that you can have "infinite mobililty", this is called "Conservation of Energy". You need "infinite mass" to have "infinite mobility", & with all the space that exists between stars & galaxies it is easy to conclude "infinite mass" does not exist.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2012
hese are logically self consistent and yet are not in agreement with other hypothesis. In the dark ages there were math models with mechanical devices using those models that put the earth at the center of the solar system.

Which only goes to show: there are many ways to get a good theory. Some are just more complicated than others. We tend to use the one that is simply (ellipses instead of epicycles) but that by no means proves that ellipses are any more right and a (large) number of epicycles are any more wrong.

Theories are always "best fit". Those that agree with best with observation and hold the greatest predictive value are the ones we should use - no matter how complex or how elegant.
JeremyC
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2012
An "Hourglass Universe"? For that to exist, there would be just as many White Holes as Black Holes, exchanging matter back and forth infinitely. Infinite # of universes through black holes doesn't work if you look at it like this. Visualize a stack of paper,eack piece in the stack seperated by a little space inbetween, and poke a hole in the top paper. Consider the smooth side to be the black hole side, stealing matter all around it. Visualize doing it millions of times to rep. black holes in our universe. The other side of the paper with matter sticking out that side from the hole, White holes, spitting matter into another "Area of Space" or the next piece of paper. Eventually, the matter from one universe(or paper) will be completely consumed, leaving the universe(or paper)empty. This would continue down the stack indefinately making it seem like there are infinite universes, but the fact is, the latter universe consumed the other, completely removing it from the stack.
JeremyC
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2012
This means that all black holes would have to not necessarily converge all matter to a certain point, but displace matter to the same place. I say this because black holes do merge. This would also explain the lack of white holes in our universe do to the fact that our own universe has already consumed more than the majority of the last universe, leaving almost no white holes, any existing expelling almost nothing, if anything.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2012
"And by the way, it is not possible to travel "infinitely" on the surface of any geometric configuration, there is not enough mass available in the universe that can be transformed in energy that you can have "infinite mobililty", this is called "Conservation of Energy". You need "infinite mass" to have "infinite mobility", & with all the space that exists between stars & galaxies it is easy to conclude "infinite mass" does not exist." - Benni -

When you say "infinite mass", I can only assume that you are meaning that new mass must be constantly created. That is not the case. Space is not filled with matter/energy. The matter fills only small portion of space/dimension and the rest is DM/DE. The Mass placements are random but orderly except for collisions occasionally. But I referred to the circle as defining infinite spatial movement of all matter/energy that comes from, or out of, super Singularity that is in previous universe. With each successive draining of matter from (cont'd)
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2012
super Singularity, that is in older universe, that universe then collapses and all its contents would be moved into new universe through Singularity still connected to old universe. Then, when all matter/energy pours out into new universe, the cycle begins again of many BHs consuming matter/energy until eventual merging of all BHs in new universe into one super Singularity once again. This process would happen over and over infinitely. However, the driving force is the circle or ring. I will call it a ring.
Within this ring is the process going on and never stops. As you must know, it is the ring, circle, sphere, etc. which are the most efficient geometric forms, e.g., Hadron Collider. It is no accident that circle was used for such proton collisions.
spickets
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2012
What if whiteholes where at the centre of each planet, starting the size of a grain of sand and expanding or growing like a seed and spawned by black holes?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
It is the same with infinite cycle for making of new universes. The processes are within the ring, and every new universe and components are within the ring. Each time the process or cycle occurs, it goes further and forward into another part of ring. Eventually, some time in eternity, everything will go back to starting point inside the ring where everything begins again as usual. Everything is contained well inside of ring: time, dimensions, mass, energies, forces, with no loss or leakage of anything to outside of ring. If there is outside, we will never know. We will seek out origin of everything, but we may not even find Singularity from whence we came. That might be hidden around a bend in the ring.
I am sorry that I cannot provide evidence. It is a hypothesis that will possibly remain as such. If someone can provide alternative to ring hypothesis, I will listen. GR is possible in the ring.
I do not believe in need for white holes.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
So black holes would be where different dimensions splice together?
- spickets -

Not plural Black Holes; only ONE very massive BH about the size of the universe due to ALL the BHs converging on each other and merging to form the one massive BH. THAT BH is still within the previous universe and all the contents of the previous universe are within that BH. Then, at a given moment, the massive BH opens up a new channel that opens up INTO a new dimension where everything from the BH pours out into the new dimension to start a new universe again. I should also mention that the previous dimension and its universe may collapse, but I do not believe that it disappears or is destroyed. It would remain collapsed, ready to be used again when the cycle comes around to it within the ring in the far off future. With a "ring system" there could be multiverses, but one at a time. There may even be other rings also.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) May 22, 2012
..... but we may not even find Singularity from whence we came.


In your own words, what do you mean by this "Singularity"?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
The "Singularity" would be similar to all Black Holes within any universe, but for example of present universe, we will say that the MASSIVE BH that is toward the end of present universe phase is also called Singularity because it is the sum total of ALL the BHs that became big enough to consume matter and energies that came too close. Each BH is called singularity due to its ability to consume or absorb all matter and light. But at the end when all BHs comes together in universe in one place, the massive BH that is combination of all others will group into such that is ready to form the channel (or funnel) into the next dimension to make new universe there. Singularity is name for the final BH that brings us forth into new dimension to make new universe, and all the laws may also prevail in that new one. It is almost like a birth after a death and the old universe with its dimension will collapse. Singularity for massive BH is optional name. You can make up different name for it.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
The previous Singularity (massive BH) from whence we (and everything else) came, would have collapsed along with the previous dimension and universe. It is not certain that that one can ever be found, but there will come the time for a new one after all BHs combine again into one massive BH (Singularity). It is preferable to call it a "Singularity", imo, because it would be related to the smaller ones that we suspect exist.
Collapse of old or previous dimension/universe is not really the death. It could be almost likened to the phoenix rising from the ashes. That is the best analogy, imo.
DTC
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2012
I love PhysOrg, especially because of articles like this. But I swear at least 80% of the people commenting have no idea what they're talking about.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
And how do you know this? Are you a physicist or have you just dropped by to see what is new?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
@Benni
Another thing that I disagree with in the article, is that Poplawski et al, seem to have the belief that it is every BH that contains a universe. The problem with that thought is how would each Black Hole in present universe have enough matter to make a universe inside itself if the rest of the matter is shared unevenly by all other Black Holes, and also the matter that is still outside of the Black Holes such as our solar system. It is illogical to say that we are in a Black Hole, but there are millions of other smaller BHs that also have their own universes that are waiting to consume us also, and that one of those BHs will add us to its universe, while another BH that is inside the same BH we are in is waiting to swallow another solar system to have its own universe inside it.
IMO, each BH does not have its own universe, but brings all the matter/energies it has consumed to merge with all others so that all the matter is accounted for.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
- cont'd -
For example, if you take a large rubber balloon, and fill it with water only halfway, then you take a million other balloons, fill them with water halfway and scatter them randomly and each of the million smaller balloons has a universe inside of it that is represented by the water. The problem with that is that each smaller balloon is only half full of water while the larger one is also only half full. So what you have in that universe are a million that are only half full because each one could not get to all the other matter first. So that more matter must be created for each BH to have full complement of matter to make nice universe. But with each succeeding universe, there would be less and less matter to fill such big space until eventually there is no more matter, unless more is created. That is okay if you can get something from nothing. But there would not even be enough particles to create more matter, if such thing were possible. And so it eventually all dies out.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2012
I would be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.This is why I'm not commenting directly on it.I know that this is all theoretical but,in a strange way, Russki's ring theory makes more sense than the theory in the actual article.At least his extrapolations allow for conservation of energy in the 'system'.The system being in this case,the ENTIRE set of universes generated by the BH's.Such a model creates a self sustaining(closed)system.It would also make a starting point less important.The open-ended version would eventually run out of steam (or contents).It's also a bit too reminiscent of the old Q of what holds up the turtle on whose back the earth is supposed to be sitting. Surely not another turtle...
A different possibility/thought/musing: maybe the maths is sound in its own way.Maybe the issue is in its interpretation.It wouldn't be the 1st time that people have used the same maths & come up with variations in understanding just what they are 'seeing'Regards,DH66
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
@DH66:

I see your point that at least Russky is making an attempt to "allow for conservation of energy", but it is feeble at best simply because his background in the subject material & Einstein's GR is so limited. I will grant him some latitude for attempting to understand "closed energy systems" (ie, the Universe & all contained therein) require finite spherically shapened structures as Einstein elucidated in his GR, that's more than the AWT cranks can fathom.

The "ring theory" leaves me with the impression of a hollow core somewhere in the Universe, and this is what he does not understand about Conservation of Energy & why Einstein stated in his GR that the Universe must have the shape of a sphere, not a donut.

Without a doubt "the open ended version would eventually run out of steam", he at least has closed that loop. It is a curious issue if mass/energy can be infinitely recycled (transformed) back & forth to one another, even Einstein wouldn't go there.

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
The problem with cosmology is that there is insufficient certainty at the two extremes of the scales of observation to justify the exclusive investigation of just one framework. There is no theory for the CMB which can disqualify a cosmology, for probably all cosmologies can account for it. The notion that plasma-based cosmologies were disqualified was especially ridiculous, because plasma physicists tell us that conducting electrical currents emit microwaves. It's simply a matter of thermalizing them into a black-body, which is easy enough to do once you learn what a double layer is (hint: the heliopause is a double layer, guys, and we're looking straight through it ...).

The problem with the more speculative domains of science right now is that many ideas -- which go to great efforts to avoid metaphysical inferences -- are simply ignored. So, what point is it then to spend so much time on the metaphysical theories, exclusively?

Cosmology has gotten off to a very rough start.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
Re: "I love PhysOrg, especially because of articles like this. But I swear at least 80% of the people commenting have no idea what they're talking about."

This is a relatively minor problem though. The far bigger problem occurs when people refuse to listen to the good arguments. Observing that some people don't know what they're talking about is insufficient justification to stop listening to everybody. That's when science will truly break down, and it's already been going on for a while now.
JeremyC
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2012
@Russkiycremepuff
with you being one of the few with a logical mind and a what appears to be a passion for astronomy and physics, if you could critique my understanding of this on pg. 7. I also wanted you to elaborate on how a white hole is not necessary. From the work of Hawking(disagree if you must, its all speculative), a black hole and a white hole are one in the same. A black hole can no longer hold on to the mass it contains and expels it, thus transforming into a white hole. Whether it comes out where it went in is where the real questions begin to form. If that is true,why are there no observable white holes in the universe? Perhaps black holes don't reach "Critical Mass" until they have gathered the majority, if not all of the mass in the current universe. If that's the case, there would only be one white hole in the universe and it would be the "Big Bang". I am no physicist, but I do feel I have Logic and Understanding on my side as well as a mind willing to learn.
wiyosaya
2.1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2012
I'm sure my comment will be voted down, but...

I love how modern science detected cosmic background radiation, then the assumption was made that that radiation must be the remnants of some gigantic explosion. Then after that, we've developed mathematical models that seem to fit the evolution of the universe, and since these mathematical models seem to the current state of the universe, they must somehow be true. In my opinion, it may be an Ignoratio elenchi. For all we know, the CBR has some other explanation we have yet to discover.

Once the next generation of extremely large telescopes come on line, I think the discoveries made with those telescopes will be extremely exciting and reveal how much we of what we think we know we really do not know.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
@JeremyC
I went back to page 7. There is no hour-glass universe. I only used figure 8 as example of infinite movement of matter in a closed universe. Your stack of paper analogy indicates open universes that will come to an end in the far future with no further beginning cycles.
It is the circle/ring that dominates the concept of infinitely moving matter in closed space. The portly donut shape is much more accurate. A sphere, even while somewhat related to a ring, does not and cannot support orderly movement of matter from one universe to the next one through BH Singularity channel. Every BH has to be hollow to accommodate every piece of matter it consumes. When all BHs finally merge together like oil slicks, that will be the end of one universe and start to begin the creation of the next, through the massive BH Singularity channel. The massive BH will continue to draw into itself any stray matter left in that old universe so that it and its dimension can collapse nicely without lumps
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
The BH does not magically transform into white hole. If Hawking postulates such magic, I do not understand his concept. The BH remains a BH until it swallows as much of matter in its grasp and it is all retained, not expelled. It does not become visible. If such thing as expelled matter could occur, it would not be the same composition as it was going into BH, because all matter/energies would be torn apart by tidal gravity and recombined into unknown masses as it is crushed beyond recognition. What may be seen spewing from BH is possibly anti-gravity particles that are repulsed from BH, similar to 2 magnets that you try to unite, but one side of magnet is repulsed by the same side on other magnet. Each BH is closed system that does not leak out enormous amounts of matter/energies. Each BH is like the dust bin of universe that collects debris.
I cannot agree with Poplawski on all BHs each having its own universe within. There would not be enough matter to reside in new universes.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
I have now again read Stephen Hawking's white hole theory and I must disagree with it. If white hole theory was true, it would mean that BHs take in matter/energies from universe and then white holes spew out matter/energies into same universe. And then it is said that Black Holes and white holes could be the same, except that each one performs differently, where white hole has event horizon that repels matter and it is impossible to enter into white hole unless it is Black Hole stage. There is redundancy in this theory. I do not see a purpose in such a theory. The white hole is not spewing matter into entirely different dimension/universe. Instead, It spews back into the same universe. It is likely swallowing and then regurgitating repeatedly. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted Hawking. I will read it again. I might be missing something.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2012
Well they are "testing" their hypothesis.....

I mean - No one actually KNOWS how they universe began, but a theory that appeared to support the circumstances, was forged from fighting like cats and dogs and research and maths etc...

This does not have to BE right, but it does at least look at the same issues in new ways, so it may end up actually being right, being partly right or not at all right - or what gets discarded in the investigation may actually be right, partly right or completely wrong.

As ideas and theories and testing all get done, someone else may see a "joining of the dots" in amongst it all and something else really profound may come forth.

There are some things that are tough to explain.... and testing ideas, does not mean that it resolves the issue, it means that the known issues either agree wholly or partly with the results and theories.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (8) May 23, 2012
Well they are "testing" their hypothesis.....

I mean - No one actually KNOWS how they universe began, but a theory that appeared to support the circumstances, was forged from fighting like cats and dogs and research and maths etc...

This does not have to BE right, but it does at least look at the same issues in new ways, so it may end up actually being right, being partly right or not at all right - or what gets discarded in the investigation may actually be right, partly right or completely wrong.

As ideas and theories and testing all get done, someone else may see a "joining of the dots" in amongst it all and something else really profound may come forth.

There are some things that are tough to explain.... and testing ideas, does not mean that it resolves the issue, it means that the known issues either agree wholly or partly with the results and theories.
ziphead
1.4 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
"The top bottle symbolizes a black hole, the connected necks represent a wormhole and the lower bottle symbolizes the growing universe on the just-formed other side of the wormhole..."

Turns out it is possible to generate 200 comments on this site by sticking two plastic bottles together.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
That is the purpose of this site, to encourage novel ideas that are reasonable and logical. I am not challenging Stephen Hawking's theories exactly, I am just offering my own. And I am not challenging GR or SR. Einstein is quite safe, for now. Somebody else will come along and offer theirs. That is one of ways to find the truth.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
In fact, Law of Thermodynamics and all other Laws of Physics are quite safe also. There is very much room for all of them in universe/dimension within a Ring. Maybe you might ask what is supporting the ring? Well, how about if the Ring floats in a pure vacuum and the vacuum is eternity. There could be also other Rings just like our Ring. Think of a life saver ring that is thrown into ocean. It floats and is not stationary. It can have motion and is fully enclosed so that nothing leaks out or gets inside. This is fully autonomous and self-sustainable Ring and all of its contents follow all natural Laws. It is very methodical and efficient use of space.
I am sorry if this is upsetting to anybody.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (6) May 23, 2012
Stop ragging on physicists who have a trillion times the intelligence any of you will ever have. It's been shown that multiverse theory is falsifiable and there is a way to obtain evidence for it by analyzing the cosmic microwave background. Their theories come close to my own and we've already partially proven string theory via gauve gravity duality and quantum entanglement. Stop it with equating science to religion, just because you guys think you know something because you're skeptical, doesn't mean you actually do nor that your opinion holds any weight whatsoever in the scientific community.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2012
You are correct, all these laws of physics are safe, and even if they werent, who is to say they arent just local to our own universe? People need to stop being so provincial, the string theory landscape provides for a myriad of universes, with multiple space and time dimensions (vafa's F theory) and even causality isnt sacred. One universe can be at the quantum level of another and create it's own spacetime as it expands into it's own dimensions, as Linde proposes (these could be created inside powerful particle accelerators.) It's a brave new omniverse folks.....
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (8) May 23, 2012
Thermodynamics is fine if the universe comes back empty during the big bounce.....

http://en.wikiped...on_model

and Hawking's Imaginary Time gets rid of the singularity problem

http://en.wikiped...ary_time
Jonseer
1 / 5 (8) May 24, 2012
One irrefutable fact is Nikodem Poplawski is the sexiest physicist on the planet LOL
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2012
There is something going on that we do not understand in a black hole because how can the mass of thousnds of stars fit in an area of a few thousand miles or less, What happens to all that matter?
sirchick
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
One irrefutable fact is Nikodem Poplawski is the sexiest physicist on the planet LOL


No.....you have some how got my name mixed up here.....thats not how you spell my name...
Jonseer
1 / 5 (8) May 24, 2012
One irrefutable fact is Nikodem Poplawski is the sexiest physicist on the planet. How else can you explain the fascination with his model of two interconnected soda bottles? People pretend to be looking at it, when they are scoping him out. hahaha
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2012
There is something going on that we do not understand in a black hole because how can the mass of thousnds of stars fit in an area of a few thousand miles or less, What happens to all that matter?

While there are plenty of reasons to dismiss this theory 'missing space' is not one of them. Space does get stretched in the presence of mass.

To measure something you have to take a ruler and lay it out over the distance you want to measure. Our ruler is the speed of light (because we know it's constant).

As seen from the outside you can measure a space that looks as big as a black hole (just take the time it takes light to traveres a similar looking space and divide by the speed of light).

But from the inside the event horizon things are different. You can shoot a beam of light (in any direction) and it will never hit the event horizon.
As seen from the inside a black hole is therefore infinitely big.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 24, 2012
Re:"It's been shown that multiverse theory is falsifiable and there is a way to obtain evidence for it by analyzing the cosmic microwave background."

The CMB proves nothing. It's humans manufacturing evidence for a theory. We could do the same for many other cosmologies. The real problem here is that theorists simply prefer not to, even though the Big Bang theory fails to account for many anomalies. Many of these problems are not minor, but could be argued to represent death blows.

It's clear to me that you are not interested in listening to critics. But, what's less clear is how you imagine that you can answer the greatest questions man has ever asked without seeking criticisms. Do you know what critical thinking is?
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) May 24, 2012
Re:"Stop it with equating science to religion, just because you guys think you know something because you're skeptical, doesn't mean you actually do nor that your opinion holds any weight whatsoever in the scientific community."

By the way, scientific consensus is not some self-fulfilling prophecy. In this modern era where people can speak up and be heard, if they put some effort into it, scientific arguments can be directed against scientific consensus. And public opinion can turn on scientific consensus. To think otherwise is to imagine that science is actually like religion, controlled from the top. No, science earns its power from the degree to which people can follow the arguments and formulate a belief in it, on their own.

What's really sad though is that people increasingly fail to discriminate certainty in inferences. There is simply no comparing the science of semiconductors with the science of cosmology. One is required to work, and the other can consistently fail.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (15) May 24, 2012
I detect that some trolls/cranks have entered this thread and may wish to control it for awhile before they move on. Therefore, I will keep from submitting much more information here. Instead, I will send a PM to each of those in this and the previous page who have asked me to clarify my hypothesis, including the antialias who did not ask, but only if they make the request. What I will send is a synopsis of my hypothesis. My roommate has graciously typed my notes for me and she will be done with it soon.
For the record, I do not believe in "string theory" as it posits that different regions of universe operate under each one's own laws. That is very disunited with the rest of universe and places barriers to each region of universe against possible entrance into it from outside the barrier.
colour2life
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2012
If the universe was created at the crest of a everlasting growing energy bubble, at the point of creation it would be expanding fast, like the inflation, and it would accelerate since the underlying bubble of energy is expanding... and it would explain missing energy and so forth...
colour2life
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2012
If the universe was created at the crest of a everlasting growing energy bubble, at the point of creation it would be expanding fast, like the inflation, and it would accelerate since the underlying bubble of energy is expanding... and it would explain missing energy and so forth... Our universe is then connected to the big "sphere" spawning universes from "scratch"
Quarky1
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2012
This reminds me of the time I proved god exists using a length of string, and then developed Unified Field Theory by playing with an old Slinky...snark snark
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2012
There is an effective event horizon between science and belief - where the chandrasekar limit appears to lie at a threshold in IQ...
Atomica
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2012
This is an odd puzzle piece that seems to fit a few different "holes" in current theories, alas it is another "elephants all the way down" explanation.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2012
@julianpenrod
If you think that gravitational energy can not be converted into mass, you'll have to try to convince Stephen Hawking about that. That was his explanation about how the matter came into being.
- cyberCMDR - (from Page 3)

According to my dictionary, the definition of Mass is: - the quantity of matter that a body contains, as measured by its acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field.
I must agree with julianpenrod

Gravity is a Force, it has no energy or motion. It causes motion. When the Matter that has Mass (weight) is falling due to the Force of Gravity, it is the Matter itself that must use its Energy to repel the Gravity, if it is possible, and if the Matter's Mass is not too great. In effect, a rubber ball (Matter) falling to the ground due to Gravity, will use its Energy to bounce upward. The Gravity will make it fall again due to it being a stronger Force than the energy and weight (Mass) of the ball (Matter).
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2012
- cont'd -
Gravitational field cannot be converted into Matter and Mass (weight) or energy. Only Matter can convert into energy and in the reverse. Thusly, Sir Stephen must have been misunderstood somehow. How the Matter came into being should be possible if all Matter in our dimension/universe had been within the massive BH that I spoke about, that came from previous dimension/universe. But I do not believe in multiple universes generated by multiple Black Holes. If that were the case, then all the Matter in existence would be eventually depleted. And at some point in time, universes would be created in those Black Holes, but with no Matter to populate them.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
As I illustrated already, the Universe doesn't appear like the interior of black hole, it just shares Riemann geometry with black spheres, but this geometry is topologically inverted. The Universe appears like the black hole turned inside out - and we have no analogy for such objects in the observable Universe.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
On Friday, I have contacted Astronomer at University to explain Poplawski's position regarding multi BHs in any given universe that create their own universe from within the BH, removing Matter/Energies from each one's previous universe. While the Astronomer is not Physicist also, he did admit that while there is evidence for Black Holes in our universe, it is impossible at this time to know exactly what is going on within each BH. We understand that M/E is pulled into BH after passing through accretion disk and we know that gamma rays are emitted from accretion disk, not BH. I have also hypothesis for the gamma rays that are blown away from BH system. BH system meaning accretion disk, event horizon, and BH itself.
I must disagree with your analogy of our universe appearing to be turned inside-out as would BH. There is no evidence of such turning in either universe or BHs.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (10) May 28, 2012
The torus (accretion disk, event horizon) that surrounds the BH must be negatively charged just like the BH, but somewhat less negative, otherwise it would be pushed away further from BH. If this was not so, then the torus would also itself be pulled in into BH if it had positive charge. The Torus is where the atomic particles are separated: negative charged particles kicked out and positively charged pulled into BH. This is highly efficient and practical system. The gamma rays that we detect from Torus are negatively charged particles as electrons. Eventually, any atoms that are without their electrons will have new ones coming from the gamma rays. Equilibrium prevails. The Torus may be analogous to the receptionist in office who decides who may enter the boss's office. (laughing)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
Ritchie/russkiy the lying flooding dumbass says this:
Gravity is a Force, it has no energy or motion. It causes motion.
-While scientists tell us:

"Graviton: A hypothetical quantum of gravitational energy, regarded as a particle."

-Your stupidity is appalling and your willingness to display it is frightening.

Your phony 'Im a russian' game is similarly frightening. How could you possibly think that people wouldnt see through that?
On Friday, I have contacted Astronomer at University to explain Poplawski's position regarding multi BHs in any given universe that create their own universe from within the BH
Did he laugh in your face?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 28, 2012
@Otto
I see that you cannot let go of this Richie and that you will continue to insist that I am he. There are about four possibilities that would describe your vexation and transference of the Richie persona to me.

1) You are seeking revenge of this man for some perceived wrong done to you.
2) You are very delusional and/or insane.
3) You are latent homosexual who seeks out this Richie to establish sexual relationship.
4) You cast aspersions to, and accuse anyone who aggressively posits an opinion that is different from your own. Your straw man continues to flood the threads and veers away from the topic.
You also have no toleration for new people unless they are trolls and cranks or pedophiles who are of no threat to you.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
Yes, Gravity IS a FORCE!! It is not energy. Ottotard embarrasses himself again.
http://physics.ab...vity.htm

Question: What is Quantum Gravity?

Answer: Quantum gravity is an overall term for theories that attempt to unify gravity with the other FUNDAMENTAL FORCES of physics (which are already unified together). It generally posits a theoretical entity, a graviton, which is a virtual particle that mediates the gravitational force. This is what distinguishes quantum gravity from certain other unified field theories ... although, in fairness, some theories that are typically classified as quantum gravity don't necessary require a graviton.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) May 28, 2012
(cont'd)
What's a graviton?
The standard model of quantum mechanics (developed between 1970 & 1973) postulates that the other three fundamental forces of physics are mediated by virtual bosons. Photons mediate the electromagnetic force, W & Z bosons mediate the weak nuclear force, and gluons (such as quarks) mediate the strong nuclear force.
The graviton, therefore, would mediate the gravitational force. If found, the graviton is expected to be massless (because it acts instantaneously at long distances) and have spin 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field).

THERE ARE 4 FORCES AND GRAVITY IS ONE OF THEM, OTTOTARD
also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikiped...Graviton
IF IT EXISTS, the Graviton is expected to be massless.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
(cont'd)
What's a graviton?
The standard model of quantum mechanics (developed between 1970 & 1973) postulates that the other three fundamental forces of physics are mediated by virtual bosons. Photons mediate the electromagnetic force, W & Z bosons mediate the weak nuclear force, and gluons (such as quarks) mediate the strong nuclear force.
The graviton, therefore, would mediate the gravitational force. If found, the graviton is expected to be massless (because it acts instantaneously at long distances) and have spin 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field).
also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikiped...Graviton
IF IT EXISTS, the Graviton is expected to be massless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2012
So Ritchie/russkiy still knows how to cut/paste. Impressive as always.
Answer: Quantum gravity is an overall term for theories that attempt to unify gravity with the other FUNDAMENTAL FORCES of physics (which are already unified together).
Right. So uh Ritchie is electromagnetism not also one of these forces, and is it not itself energy?

Take your time. Reread the def I posted that says the graviton Is a quantum of energy.

You know many universities are now giving degrees online if your ass is permanently stuck to your couch and so could not attend in person.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
So Ritchie/russkiy still knows how to cut/paste. Impressive as always.
The flooding of PO discussions with copy&paste of Wikipedia articles is very dull behavior. The fact, these posts have no factual connection to article subject is just a consequence of this behavior.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2012
Not plural Black Holes; only ONE very massive BH about the size of the universe due to ALL the BHs converging on each other and merging to form the one massive BH.
And we can recall not too long ago when Ritchieguy posited this same idea that black holes were somehow more attracted to each other than other objects with similar mass, and so would seek each other out across the void of space and against the expansion of the universe, ignoring all other mass objects, to join together in eternal harmony. How poetic.

What are the chances of 2 dumbasses of sufficient magnitude coming up with this same idiot idea?

Sorry Ritchie you have outed yourself. Have a nice day dumbass.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
Terriva, I do believe that the Otto creature is jealous of my knowledge. He thinks I am his Richie boyfriend who has probably rejected the Otto creature and is laughing while reading all of the posts. He obviously lost to this Richie and cannot get over it.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
The Graviton is still only hypothetical. There is no evidence it exists.
I will cut and paste a source, and everything else is in my own words. I see many people who cut and paste, including the Ottotard who appears to be a Wikipedia addict.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
I do not know this Richie but apparently the Ottotard cares for him. In one thread I read what was said about the Black Holes and it agreed with my own opinion, but not completely. As with Amrit Sorli, the hypothesis was not continuing farther. I continued it with my own version of Big Bang.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
A repeat of OttoTard from Page 9

quote
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 hours ago

Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Ritchie/russkiy the lying flooding dumbass says this:
Gravity is a Force, it has no energy or motion. It causes motion.
-While scientists tell us:

"Graviton: A hypothetical quantum of gravitational energy, regarded as a particle."

-Your stupidity is appalling and your willingness to display it is frightening.

Your phony 'Im a russian' game is similarly frightening. How could you possibly think that people wouldnt see through that?
On Friday, I have contacted Astronomer at University to explain Poplawski's position regarding multi BHs in any given universe that create their own universe from within the BH
Did he laugh in your face?

It is apparent the OttoTard does not understand the meaning of hypothetical Graviton and says it exists for Gravity even though it cannot be found. He needs to stick to his religion and his Gaia as he is much better at those than science topics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
He needs to stick to his religion and his Gaia as he is much better at those than science topics.
And Ritchie needs to stick to his sweaty couch and his sonic hedgehog games and stop pestering people with his nonsense.

From another thread:

Hey russkiyRitchie
Yes, gold can be cast with lost wax method.
Nobody said anything about lost wax method. That was ritchies idea and you wouldn't have known that unless you are him.

You've outed yourself yet again you stupidass.
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (10) May 29, 2012
The ghost of Blotto is not capable of much else than rabid ad hominem attack - attacking the person instead of the argument - a clear symptom of low intellectual and spiritual quality - just a troll out to clutter his inadequate ego all over wasted space. One wishes such ceatures speedy improvement of their challenging condition...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
The ghost of Blotto is not capable of much else than rabid ad hominem attack - attacking the person instead of the argument - a clear symptom of low intellectual and spiritual quality - just a troll out to clutter his inadequate ego all over wasted space. One wishes such ceatures speedy improvement of their challenging condition...
Tachy... Tachyon... Sounds familiar. What outrage was it that you perpetrated that otto felt obligated to respond to? I forget.

Oh right... Philosophy...

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Careful - with friends like the flooder dweeb Ritchie you won't need otto-
sam_harris_520125
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
DISCLAIMER: I am not a scientist. Just had a question or two.

If black holes are (theoretically) a rip in spacetime then does that mean the universe has boundaries? And that boundary is spacetime itself?

IE...If I blow up a balloon, cut a hole in it, then the air begins to escape on a massive scale and the balloon deflates.

What if I blow up a balloon, cut a hole in it but the balloon stays inflated? Moreover, it kept expanding. The only way that is possible is if more air is coming in than going out correct?

Wouldn't that suggest the boundary of the balloon is at the point of the hole I cut? If the balloon keeps expanding then there is no boundary INSIDE the balloon correct?

Now, think of the incoming air as dark matter/dark energy. Think of the outgoing air as matter. Is it possible black holes release dark matter/energy as well as consume matter?

Again, just a layman on this stuff but always loved science.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
Yes, yes, it is apparent that GhostofRetardo must always be in hot pursuit of those he believes to be this Richie, even if he has to ruin or destroy perfectly good threads and topics with his neurosis. I think he has the love/hate relationship with the Richie person and will not give up until he can have him again.
I have explained this insane person to one of my roommates who is psychologist and he says that the GhostofRetardo is displaying neurosis which I am not permitted to name here.
This RetardedGhost is hater of Philosophy and religion. One must wonder how many philosophers and religion believers are beating the path to his door and ruining his day
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
If black holes are (theoretically) a rip in spacetime then does that mean the universe has boundaries? And that boundary is spacetime itself?
This is how the boundaries of black hole and universe appear in dense aether model. They're merely a visibility scope of Universe, similar to the visibility scope inside of landscape under haze. We cannot see inside of black holes or outside of our visible Universe area, because the light get scattered with density fluctuations of vacuum too much. If we could come closer, we would see outside of it. The difference is, we would evaporate during this at the case of nearing to black hole, but IMO we should survive at the boundary of observable Universe quite easily. IMO observable Universe has no apparent physical boundaries and we are always just at the center of it in the same way, like observer of landscape under the fog.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
The question, whether we could travel across Universe for ever without evaporation or collapse is interesting even in context of dense aether model. Because the Universe is random inhomogeneous foam in AWT, the probability we could find the Universe of the same density, like this one at the local part of Universe would decrease with distance from Milky Way. The CMBR anisotropy may serve as a tangible evidence of the macroscopic anisotropy of the observable Universe. So IMO, if we would choose a wrong direction, we would evaporate or collapse gradually even in the steady state Universe. But the scope of habitable Universe would be probably much larger, than its visibility scope - with compare to Big Bang theory, in which the era of Universe formation begins just behind its visibility scope.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
Actually, I was in favour of Tachyon8491's supremely gifted delivery of Philosophic worthiness to science and everyday life. I applauded his efforts at defeating in debate the uncivilised ruffian, GhostofRetardo.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
The solving of personal i.e. subjective problems with another readers at public forum is annoying and retarded as well. This is not a social club. If you're unsure and you still need to masturbate with someone, use the private messaging feature for it instead. I do consider all people, who are posting off-topic comments an idiots automatically - no matter, who they're fighting against right now.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
Yes, gold can be cast with lost wax method.
Nobody said anything about lost wax method. That was ritchies idea and you wouldn't have known that unless you are him.

You've outed yourself yet again you stupidass. - TheGhostofRetardo -

My cousin in Russia is a metallurgist and has cast gold and silver castings many times for the jewelry trade in the Russian Federation. It is also done with brass and bronze. That is all I know about metallurgy. It is apparent that TheGhostofRetardo thinks that no one else in the world knows such things as lost wax method, and attributes such knowledge only to his Richie boyfriend.
They say that a mind is terrible thing to waste, and I do believe that TheGhostofRetardo has lost his.
sam_harris_520125
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2012
@Terriva

Another quick question then. Hypothetically speaking. If one could enter a black hole and survive, do you think they would be in another universe or the same universe?

I know currently (probably forever) no one can survive a black hole. My question was hypothetical in nature. If a person would enter and survive a black hole do you think that person is still in our universe or in a different universe?

Basically, what is our best guess on what happens to all observable matter that enters a black hole? I realize it gets broken down and stretch to unimaginable small pieces.

I'm just having a hard time believing matter turns back into absolute nothing once it gets eaten by a black hole.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
@Terriva
It would be best if you would direct your ire toward the one (TheGhostofBlotto) who entered the thread to disseminate his hate filled and bigoted speech toward me while stroking his imagination that I would possibly be his boyfriend, Richie. I have read some of the Richie comments as well as hundreds of other commenters. This Ottotard person has a love/hate neurosis for the Richie person that will never leave him. And he will continue to disrupt interesting threads to post his warped imaginings in this and other threads, wherever he can find me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
Actually, I was in favour of Tachyon8491's supremely gifted delivery of Philosophic worthiness to science and everyday life. I applauded his efforts at defeating in debate the uncivilised ruffian, GhostofRetardo.
Typical ritchie sucking sound in the shameless search for allies. This is not how it is done ritchie. Being honest and not lying about cousins in russia or psychologist roomies is.
I have read some of the Richie comments as well as hundreds of other commenters.
Yeah for 2 years we know ritchie. And only now you decide to jump in with 60 post-per-day floods in typical ritchieguy fashion? Pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
Yes, for two years I have observed you and others posting countless inane comments in this website. You do not enter in this thread to post your science opinions or questions. You come in here and other threads to disrupt with your stupid bigotry and lies.
I am not concerned if you do not believe that I am Russian and that I have a cousin who is metallurgist. You have not explained to me what you think is my nationality or anything else about me.
Your "typical Richie sucking sound" is your own sucking sound as you imagine me to be your boyfriend. I think that everyone is now aware of your motive for coming after me and possibly others.
You picked #3 of the possibilities in a previous page. Therefore it is evident that you are wanting sex with a man. I am not interested in your gayness motive for searching in every thread that I enter for me. If you persist in your atrocity toward me, I will request the Phys.org administration to have you removed from this website.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
If the administration does not have access to all of your posts regarding you lies about me, I will be glad to provide them with all of the copies. If they do not remove you from their website, I will contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and also the State Department to inform them of your harassment of a foreign guest from Russia. They also will have copies of your posts and lies about me. Perhaps you are not aware of the laws regarding libel and slander. You will soon find out, I assure you.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
Your libelous statements regarding me have not gone unnoticed, and other proper measures will be taken, if necessary, through other proper channels.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
TheGhostofOttotard has also followed me into this thread: http://phys.org/n...ath.html
where he continued to call me Richie and then on second page, his adoring follower, CardacianNeverid/FrankHerbert/bewertow comes to his rescue while also calling me Richie. They will continue to insist that I am their Richie person, while I in turn, will insist on their being removed from the Phys.org website. And any of their sock puppets will be found out and also removed on daily basis. They have chosen wrong person for their invective and idiotic diatribes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2012
I will contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and also the State Department to inform them of your harassment of a foreign guest from Russia.
Here let me help:
http://www.fbi.go.../e-scams
http://travel.state.gov/visa/

-Also for info on sweet sorghum farming:
http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm
http://energy.gov...-sources

-And resources for your particular affliction:
http://www.cdc.go...ditions/
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/

-Anything else you need? Maybe this?
http://www.keepdo...od80qgWg

-Youre welcome.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
I have spoken to the State Department already and they will look into your IP address and your identity with Phys.org
Do not worry. It will be carried out since you have shown up again to harass me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2012
I have spoken to the State Department already and they will look into your IP address and your identity with Phys.org
Do not worry. It will be carried out since you have shown up again to harass me.
-And I will relate to the feds the instance when you threatened to shoot me. Remember that ritchie? Which do you think is worse? Who do you think might really get in trouble?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
Your Richie threatened your life? Somehow I am not surprised and he must have had a very good reason to threaten to shoot you.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2012
And what was he going to shoot you with? Oh, I see....of course it would have to be a big cyber cannon. (LAUGHING)
Tell me more about your Richie. Did you have great sex together? Tardo, you have been keeping secrets from your Phys.org friends.
Details....we must have more details of your sexual encounters with your Richie. Did you and your Richie have a lover's quarrel?
SteveL
not rated yet Jun 04, 2012
Invasion of the grade schoolers..

Did I miss the "My daddy can beat up your daddy" threat? Ugh!
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
@SteveL
It was a perfectly good thread authored by Poplawski with a very interesting hypothesis which I somewhat disagreed with and have my own opinion about it. And then TheGhostofTardo1923 made his decision to enter the thread to call me Richie and with vile words, but not to talk about the science topic itself. Therefore, it was only ONE grade schooler who invaded a good thread to destroy it and it was not me.
I still cannot understand what GhostofTardo's obsession with his Richie is all about. I hope his idiotic behavior is not typical of all Americans.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2012
I hope his idiotic behavior is not typical of all Americans.


No person or group of persons are indicative of a whole people. If even members of a family can vary as greatly as they do, you can't logically expect larger groups of people to all be "the same".

The fastest way to end an unworthy discussion is to not participate, especially at a reciprocally unworthy level.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
@Russkiycremepuff

I've read your comments in previous pages on your opinions of the black holes in the universe and I think your hypothesis seems much more reasonable than that of Nicodem Poplawski. And then I found this link that seems to be in agreement with your idea of 2 or more black holes merging together to form one larger black hole.

http://phys.org/n...axy.html

Your idea of all the matter and energy in the universe being eaten up by all of the black holes and then the black holes all merging together sounds mighty reasonable to me.
Could you explain further, please?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
@SteveL
You are correct, of course. Not all Americans or Europeans are of the same mentally deranged condition as GhostofTardo1923 and his friends. In fact, I have many friends within the faculty of University at which I have been attending to prepare for my teaching position at home in the Russian Federation. They have been very helpful in assembling my list of American slang words and phrases. In addition to normal English, I will be teaching the nuances of American slang to prepare my students for their future travels to America and Canada. I will miss my kind American friends. Once I am at home, if at all possible, I will read the posts to see who else the Crazy Otto and his friends are calling the Richie. But I will have not the time for commenting on Phys.org, but only to read the articles mainly.
Your advice is taken. I will no longer participate in any discussion with that unworthy person and his friends. Thank you.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
@PussyCat-Eyes
Yes, of course. Far off in the future when all of the Matter/Energies have been consumed by the Black Holes and the BHs all begin merging together, the universe then begins to collapse, imo. If there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. they will also be consumed by the BHs. Everything goes in BHs and nothing comes out. As the present universe collapses like a plastic bag of water (for analogy), it pushes whatever M/E is left, and into the direction of the massive BH that has formed inside the Ring system. The universe cannot collapse if there is any M/E left in any region of it. Therefore, as with the bag of water analogy, the Force of collapsing universe "pushes" all remaining BHs together to merge as One. Then, when the universe has thoroughly collapsed inside the Ring, the massive BH Singularity opens a channel into another Dimension/Universe, also inside the Ring.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
- cont'd -
I would say that it is most efficient way of creation of new Dimension/Universe rather than Big Bang and M/E spreading out into same universe again and again.
I found it hard to accept the Poplawski hypothesis of all massive BHs forming their own universe from within each BH. HIS idea would mean eventual depletion of all M/E after enough universes had been created by each massive BH. That just did not seem logical to me. I think that Poplawski needs to rethink his hypothesis and go with mine as much as possible, if he wishes. I hope he reads his own thread.
As I have said before, eventually there will be no more M/E to populate any future universes inside each massive BH, if Poplawski is correct. Thusly, there will be no more BHs being created in his universes because BHs depend on M/E to consume.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
- cont'd -
IF Poplawski is correct, then eventually, no more universes and BHs will be made except by magic, when all M/E has been depleted. It is like millionaire who gives one million people each a dollar. Then each person cuts up his dollar into a million pieces to give to a million friends. Very soon, there is no more pieces to cut and the cycle ends. In my own hypothesis of the Dimension/Universe formed by the ONE massive BH Singularity INSIDE the Ring system, there will never be depletion of M/E and the process will continue in the Ring forever. The Ring is important for this to happen.

PussyCat_Eyes, if you wish to, you may send me a PM with your email address so that I can give you much more information on this topic? I have been sent acceptance notice for my application for the teaching position in Russian Federation, and I will be going there again soon to get everything set up for my curriculum and to get acquainted with faculty and administration.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
@Russkiycremepuff
LOL..I was going to ask you about the 'cremepuff' in your user name, but I suppose you might have a love of creme puffs. I enjoy them too, occasionally.
I will send you my email address in the PM. Thanks for cluing me in further to a fascinating topic. I'll be making a print copy of everything you've said so that I don't forget. Good luck with your teaching job. :))
Wid
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2012
*sigh*
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2012
*sigh*

Yup...He's handing off to the next sockpuppet.

You know why it doesn't work, Ritchie? Because it's impossible to have more than one person as dumb as you on the globe at any one time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
*sigh*

Yup...He's handing off to the next sockpuppet.

You know why it doesn't work, Ritchie? Because it's impossible to have more than one person as dumb as you on the globe at any one time.
-Or as poignantly sick. What could possibly be the source of this compulsion to expose oneself in such an embarrassing manner? Unless Ritchie is thinking he is being immensely clever in making up these sockpuppet characters. Which is also very very sick.

Who was that woman from the glasshead Martian website? Jeannie? It is plausible that all these characters - pirouette, Ritchieguy, Russkiy, and now this pussycat freak, as well as the others who rate and then disappear, are this empty Jeannie person.

Is the abuse you invite upon yourself really a substitute for affection and companionship Jeannie? Are you really THAT fucked up?

More news stories

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Scientists tether lionfish to Cayman reefs

Research done by U.S. scientists in the Cayman Islands suggests that native predators can be trained to gobble up invasive lionfish that colonize regional reefs and voraciously prey on juvenile marine creatures.

Leeches help save woman's ear after pit bull mauling

(HealthDay)—A pit bull attack in July 2013 left a 19-year-old woman with her left ear ripped from her head, leaving an open wound. After preserving the ear, the surgical team started with a reconnection ...