Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests wormhole research

Apr 06, 2010
Einstein-Rosen bridges like the one visualized above have never been observed in nature, but they provide theoretical physicists and cosmologists with solutions in general relativity by combining models of black holes and white holes.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the print edition April 12.

Poplawski takes advantage of the Euclidean-based coordinate system called isotropic coordinates to describe the of a black hole and to model the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole.

In studying the radial motion through the (a black hole's boundary) of two different types of black holes -- Schwarzschild and Einstein-Rosen, both of which are mathematically legitimate solutions of -- Poplawski admits that only experiment or observation can reveal the motion of a particle falling into an actual black hole. But he also notes that since observers can only see the outside of the black hole, the interior cannot be observed unless an observer enters or resides within.

"This condition would be satisfied if our universe were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger universe," he said. "Because Einstein's general does not choose a time orientation, if a black hole can form from the gravitational collapse of matter through an event horizon in the future then the reverse process is also possible. Such a process would describe an exploding white hole: matter emerging from an event horizon in the past, like the expanding universe."

A white hole is connected to a black hole by an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) and is hypothetically the time reversal of a black hole. Poplawski's paper suggests that all astrophysical black holes, not just Schwarzschild and Einstein-Rosen black holes, may have Einstein-Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole.

"From that it follows that our universe could have itself formed from inside a black hole existing inside another universe," he said.

By continuing to study the gravitational collapse of a sphere of dust in isotropic coordinates, and by applying the current research to other types of , views where the universe is born from the interior of an Einstein-Rosen black hole could avoid problems seen by scientists with the Big Bang theory and the black hole information loss problem which claims all information about matter is lost as it goes over the event horizon (in turn defying the laws of quantum physics).

This model in isotropic coordinates of the universe as a black hole could explain the origin of cosmic inflation, Poplawski theorizes.

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.

Explore further: The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)

More information: "Radial motion into an Einstein-Rosen bridge," Physics Letters B, by Nikodem J. Poplawski. (Volume 687, Issues 2-3, 12 April 2010, Pages 110-113.

Related Stories

What are 'mini' black holes?

Mar 29, 2010

In films and books black holes capture unwary spaceships and planets, gobble up whole galaxies or offer portals to other parts of the Universe.

The Edge of a Black Hole

Aug 18, 2009

The existence of black holes is one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Despite his original misgivings about their reality, massive black hole holes are today believed ...

Black Holes Lead Galaxy Growth

Jan 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers may have solved a cosmic chicken-and-egg problem -- the question of which formed first in the early Universe -- galaxies or the supermassive black holes seen at their cores.

Recommended for you

Using antineutrinos to monitor nuclear reactors

10 hours ago

When monitoring nuclear reactors, the International Atomic Energy Agency has to rely on input given by the operators. In the future, antineutrino detectors may provide an additional option for monitoring. ...

Imaging turns a corner

14 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Scientists have developed a new microscope which enables a dramatically improved view of biological cells.

Mapping the road to quantum gravity

Apr 23, 2014

The road uniting quantum field theory and general relativity – the two great theories of modern physics – has been impassable for 80 years. Could a tool from condensed matter physics finally help map ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marjon
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
I read a science fiction story a long time ago suggesting this idea.
Doug_Huffman
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2010
So much for the LHC blackhole hysteria.

Big blackholes have little black holes
right there inside 'em.
And LHC blackholes
have lesser blackholes and so on infinitum.
PieRSquare
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2010
And LHC blackholes have lesser blackholes and so on infinitum.

It's turtles all the way down...
JayK
2.8 / 5 (16) Apr 06, 2010
I read a science fiction story a long time ago suggesting this idea.

Your bible?
eyewoo
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Someone give me a PhD!

I presented this idea two nights ago for the first time to the public. In the highly respected online journal (comments section of another article on..) newscientist.

I have a bunch of other ideas in a variety of fields! FYI: I am really lo-maintenance, running on sugar and self rolled cigarettes. I am available straight away because Im "in between jobs" atm. Living at my parents house, so I dont need the highest pay grade from the get-go, also I can work from my home sofa. A bargain I would say for any university. I would be a smash hit in any field, first word "theoretical".
seneca
2.9 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2010
I read a science fiction story a long time ago suggesting this idea.
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?
michaelick
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
Does this mean the LHC can create little universes ???
seneca
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
While I spread this idea too before some time (and it really simplifies explanation/understanding of some connections), now I prefer the idea, Universe is intrinsically quite random and it's appearance is a consequence of the observation of this randomness from perspective of another one. IMO our Universe would appear like interior of black hole from whatever place of it in similar way, in which we are observing foggy landscape under haze. Note that the ripples at water surface are always condensing due their dispersion into extradimensions - so that space-time formed by water surface appears omni-directionally expanding at every place of water surface. This concept is an extension of Copernician principle - our Universe is nothing special and our place in it is basically quite random.

The power of Copernician principle is in point, it leads to the same observations and conclusions - but it doesn't require any assumptions, thus following Occam's razor principle.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
Does this mean the LHC can create little universes ???
Of course not, but if it creates a tiny black hole, then the energy would propagate quite slowly inside of it with respect to the neighbouring vacuum - so that from perspective of insintric observer inside of such bubble it would appear like quite large, independent space. But we cannot live in it, because we would evaporate here.
And such Universe would be quite primitive, as it could host only few levels of very simple particles/density fluctuations of quark-gluon plasma. In ekpyrotic cosmology our Universe was formed by similar collision of many branes, but in substantially larger scope, then the LHC could provide. But the concept remains similar.
Bogey
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
Actually this was my idea, which I suggested on the New Scientist web site last year. Nice to see someone with letters after his name taking my suggestion seriously.
seneca
2 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2010
Of course, if our Universe is formed by interior of massive black hole, then the concept of dense Aether follows naturally from it - and virtually nobody can have nothing against it...;-) It would explain nature of light wave and many other stuff..

We can try to imagine, how interior of dense neutron star could appear. It would be formed by quite transparent superfluid similar to our vacuum, and because every density fluctuation of such immense dense matter would have a large density too, these fluctuations would attract mutually under formation of primitive gravitating systems. The quantum vortices of such fluid would exhibit positive and negative charges and possibly many properties of elementary particles - they would be just a substantially "larger". As Kipp Thorne mentioned, the interior of such dense star would appear like foam or sponge similar to dark matter streaks - only much more pronounced, the the dark matter foam inside of our Universe.
seneca
2 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Actually this was my idea, which I suggested on the New Scientist web site last year. Nice to see someone with letters after his name taking my suggestion seriously.

The idea, Universe travels by throat of dark brane is widespread between stringy cosmologists and it's definitely older, then one year. But does the appearance of Universe really require some special position inside of random stuff? Are we really trapped inside of particular black hole, or it just appears so from inside? I'd prefer rather not - at sufficiently large scale our Universe appears quite random and we can choose it as an introductory paradigm.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Nonetheless, the concept, Universe is formed by interior of black hole is testable in some ways, which are maybe more interesting, then the concept itself. For example, most of black holes exhibits the polar jets, which would appear like dark windows from inside - or Einstein-Rosen bridges to outer Universe, because event horizon of black hole is broken here. By famous astronomer Laura Mersini WMAP cold spot in constellation of Eridanus could be interpreted as a such window to parallel Universe. But after then we should observe another one at the opposite side of the sky.

http://en.wikiped...old_spot

Another point is, the inner surface of black hole should reflect light like concave mirror. The images of distant stars could be reflected, red-shifted and magnified by it. Such observations were really done already.

http://www.sciam....first-st

You can consider a "mirror hall" model of Universe in this connection.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
Another evidence of black hole model of Universe is indirect. The cosmic microwave background can be considered as a Hawking radiation of tiny black hole of diameter about 2 cm. The lifespan of such black hole is indeed limited due the Hawking radiation - and the lifespan expected corresponds roughly just the age of the observable Universe. It would mean, the cosmic microwave radiation is the Hawking radiation of our Universe, which we are observing both from inside, both from outside at the same moment in accordance to holographic principle.
shockr
4 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
I'm sure in another thread, someone spoke about jet suppression on black holes.. would this not provide a reason for having only one cold spot?
Oliver_k_Manuel
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
Soul Surfer had this idea so did i, it is a good idea i like it.
http://www.thenak...8.0;wap2

white hole = cmb
we are shrinking, not universe expanding
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
I'm sure in another thread, someone spoke about jet suppression on black holes.. would this not provide a reason for having only one cold spot?
Yes, you're perfectly right and I'm quite glad you remember it! It could really indicate the symmetry violation of our Universe itself. After then the position of the WMAP cold spot should be correlated with Doppler anisotropy of CMB radiation.

After all, such giant black hole like our Universe could appear rather like strawberry with many jets / convective cells simmilar to surface of Sun. The structure of dark matter foam indicates such convective structure, too. Its anitropy would be very slightly pronounced and it would appear rarther like shinning white hole or quasar. Such quasar would lose its mass by radiation, thus collapsing into more dense state. This would explain the shrinkage, mentioned above.

But does our Universe really appear so at sufficiently general level? I know about all these ideas, but I doubt it.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
IMO the similarity of Universe with many aspects of black hole is rather a geometrical consequence of energy spreading in dispersive environment. We can observe it even at water surface, where waves are spreading in transversal capillary waves. At short distances these waves are dispersed by Brownian noise into longitudinal ones in similar way, like the quite large gravity waves. Due the dispersion every transversal wave would lose its energy with distance, thus changing its wavelength and exhibiting red-shift. From perspective of tiny creatures living at water surface such 2-D space-time would appear of nested fractal nature in similar way, like our Universe. But does it mean, such creatures are living in black holes?

IMO it's much more probable, when we would move toward Hubble depth field, all these distant galaxies would appear quite normally and another ones would emerge. In reciprocal way, Milky Way galaxy would dissolve in CMB noise - we could see only old hot core of it.
Thadieus
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
So if we create a small black hole and if by contrary belief of others in this forum a universe is created. Are we not God? I'm not at all religious but does not the Bible state he created us in his like image. If, and I stress "if", this is correct would it not be surprising if we create universes?
CaptBarbados
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
Does this mean the LHC can create little universes ???


Or destroy them, as the case may be. Just little ones though. Not big ones like ours, inside a black hole in some other universe... they're trying to fathom the energy required to accelerate all the mass in the universe, in every direction. But, in some cases, some of the universe appears to be "migrating in a specific direction" as well.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
We cannot see behind CMB fog into dark era of Universe, but recent observations of Hubble depth field are indicating, the most distant galaxies aren't so young, as they should be. By their spectra they contain significant amount of well developed star. It would indicate, our Universe is virtually unlimited, which would violate black hole model of Universe.

Recently the unparticle concept of Howard Georgi was proposed. This concept plays well with the dense aether model of Universe, in which it would appear like fractal foam of nested density fluctuations

http://www.physor...984.html

I presume, at sufficiently large level Universe appears rather like dense clouds or Perlin noise without any apparent structure. The concept of Unhiggs field at the opposite end of distance scale supports this hypothesis, too. It seems, there is really no distinct structure of Universe at large or small scale and our Universe is infinite.

http://www.physor...1225.htm
seneca
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2010
So if we create a small black hole and if by contrary belief of others in this forum a universe is created. Are we not God?

Well, technically we are tiny household Gods. An idols, could be said. Such pocket universes are quite shortliving and tiny and they enable only very limited evolution of complex structure inside it. Qualitatively there is no difference, but quantitative difference is still pretty large. But conceptually the condensation of matter in colliders doesn't differ from any other condensation, so you can say, you're God whenever you precipitate some matter or droplets from homogeneous mixture.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
There is always question, whether we can create a more dense matter, then this one, which was used during collisions. The existence of daughter universe inside of existing black holes is doubtful, too. They should never enable formation of more complex structures, then those, which exists around us already. In this way, such black holes are rather extensions of our Universe, then the true daughter Universes.
Thadieus
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
So if we create a small black hole and if by contrary belief of others in this forum a universe is created. Are we not God?

Well, technically we are tiny household Gods. An idols, could be said. Such pocket universes are quite shortliving and tiny and they enable only very limited evolution of complex structure inside it. Qualitatively there is no difference, but quantitative difference is still pretty large. But conceptually the condensation of matter in colliders doesn't differ from any other condensation, so you can say, you're God whenever you precipitate some matter or droplets from homogeneous mixture.


Would the "quantitative difference" be relative to where you are? If you are living in the created universe time may be perceived as millions of years vs. someone who is outside who just created it and it lasting for a second?
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
If our Universe exhibits CMB of 2 cm wavelength, it should be considered as a black hole in 2 cm diameter. Such black hole is nothing exceptional - but we should realize, it's a true size of black hole when you come near to it (and evaporate). From safe distance such tiny black hole would appear a much larger.

Anyway, does it mean, every larger black hole may contain a much larger & complex Universe, then this one, where we are living in? Such black hole should be much more older too - because universe cannot host black holes older then it is. Currently it seems, most of galaxies appears younger, then the Universe, despite of the size of black hole, which are sitting at their centers. The question is, whether the age of these holes should involve the age of material particles, which formed it originally.

There are many things, which I don't understand in connection to black hole model of Universe, so I'm just opening these problems for anybody, who may be interested about it
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
SUB:WRONG CONCEPTS
Worm hole- Blackhole and LHC concepts attempt to mislead Spirit of Scientific Research.
Multi-Universe Concepts are parts of Cosmology Vedas -See Interlinks and my articles in Cosmology Review [dot] Com -Dec 1999
East West Interaction helps to save Time and Energy for Cosmology Groups
Vidyardhi Nanduri
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
Would the "quantitative difference" be relative to where you are?
Of course yes, but the another question is, whether the description of some reality from perspective, which is unreachable for us has really some relevance? We can say easily, the time goes quite slowly inside of black hole, but this time cannot describe any phenomena, which we are observing in real life. It's a sort of fuzzy logics which may be substantiated, but it must not, too. When true God creates an Universe, it remains able to interact with it "from outside" in every detail. From this perspective we are only Gods of 2nd category: we can prepare daughter Universes, but we cannot handle them in any way.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2010
From simple physical perspective it's impossible to affect motion of every molecule inside of water droplet just by using of surface waves because of necessary lost of information. In this way, every simple water droplet is behaving like independent quantum object, where substantial portion of information is lost from perspective of outside observer. It may be possible, for exact manipulation of every molecule at distance we should be able to handle every gravitational wave inside of our Universe!

In this way, the laws of physics would probably prohibit us as to act a Gods of 1st category after preparation of daughter Universe. We cannot observe the interior of resulting black hole prepared by colliders, to handle its interior at detailed level the less because of trivial laws of geometry. This isn't good restriction - we cannot have everything under complete control in similar way, like true God should have - until we become identical with the Universe prepared.
stvnwlsn
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
Our universe is just a grain of sand on someone elses beach.

Nature is full of patterns, fractals that are reproduced on larger and larger scales. Think of atoms, the solar system and galaxies, and I suspect subatomic particles revolve around a nucleous in a smaller system as well. While not identical in their composition you have a basic system that is reproduced on larger and larger scales. Nature uses fractals because of the simplicity of combining them to create a larger system. Everything is connected and every action ripples through the entire system affecting everything else to some small degree.

I suspect that size is a sort of illusion and and the smallest and largest are intimately connected in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

Music gives us a hint at this larger construct with a note in one key sounding the same, yet different in a higher key.

Every part of the system has a resonant frequency or frequencies depending on the vibrations of it's components
Taps
4 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
Actually this was my idea, which I suggested on the New Scientist web site last year. Nice to see someone with letters after his name taking my suggestion seriously.


This universe in-a-black hole concept has been around for at least 2 years that I know. It's all over google video: Nassim Haramein - I am not sure where he got his information from however since he's been so quiet as of late.

I suspect there has been a lot of plagiarism in this black hole universe concept.
eachus
4 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
By famous astronomer Laura Mersini WMAP cold spot in constellation of Eridanus could be interpreted as a such window to parallel Universe. But after then we should observe another one at the opposite side of the sky.


No. We only see a small fraction of the universe. If there are two such poles, it is possible we would see one, but it would be impossible to see both--at least after inflation occurred.

broglia
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2010
...It's all over google video: Nassim Haramein..
This concept is apparently much older - there is an article from 2006

http://www.newsci...ole.html
AtomThick
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
I know it sounds plausible that our Universe is the interior of a black hole in another Universe which in turn is the interior of a black hole in another Universe...ad infinitum. However, at some point one will have to become rational and stop the recurrent process posing the following question: "How was the parent of all the Universes created if it is not the interior of a black hole?"
JavaTheHut
not rated yet Apr 07, 2010
I have always had difficulty considering the worm hole theories as possible since the amount of blackholes seem to be boundless and are at the center of most galaxies and yet we have not been introduced to a single exit aka "white hole". Who is to say that the matter attracted into a black hole needs to go anywhere at all?
Soul_Viewer
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
A very special cosmological model based on the dynamical interior geometry of a black hole is found that has no singularities at t=0 due to the smoothing of the mass distribution. We conclude with another cosmological model equipped also with a dynamical horizon and which is related to Vaidya's metric (associated with the Hawking radiation of black holes) by interchanging t with r, which might render our univese a black hole.

www.worldscinet.c...931.html
Mr_Man
not rated yet Apr 07, 2010
If there are "universes" within a Black Hole, or a "white hole" on the other side, wouldn't that new universe be limited in matter to what matter the collapsed star consisted of along with any new matter that fell into the black hole?

That really wouldn't be a whole lot of matter in that "new" universe..

Also, that would mean additional matter is coming into that new universe, so does that mean some where in our universe there is matter spilling into it?

Maybe I am understanding this wrong, please correct me if that is the case.
corticalchaos
not rated yet Apr 07, 2010
someone finally decided to do the math for this classic sci-fi idea. the idea came from the basic symmetry of natural forces
seneca
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2010
If there are two such poles, it is possible we would see one, but it would be impossible to see both--at least after inflation occurred.
Most probable explanation of WMAP cold spot is, it has nothing to do with poles of Universe

http://news.softp...69.shtml
El_Lover
not rated yet Apr 07, 2010
I have always had difficulty considering the worm hole theories as possible since the amount of blackholes seem to be boundless and are at the center of most galaxies and yet we have not been introduced to a single exit aka "white hole". Who is to say that the matter attracted into a black hole needs to go anywhere at all?


I think its because matter is draining in one direction only, (mass is oriented to bend space/time out of this universe). white holes should only be seen when a new universe is born and not inside of an already formed universe such as ours.

one possibility is the collision of two universe containing singularities, the only problem is how can 2 infinitely small points collide??
seneca
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
WHY do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth?

http://www.newsci...uld.html
Taps
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
But if we think on a quantum level, the universe appears to be some kind of vibration that our awareness interacts with and takes observations giving us the concept of consciousness. So if it's [the universe] a vibration and that vibration goes into a black hole, what is not to say that the vibration simply changes into a different vibrational state? There would be no loss of energy, just a frequency change and new universe with its own set of rules and physics.

How big is big? how small is small? The story of Lilliput has a simple message for us all.
BrendanStamp
not rated yet Apr 08, 2010
What was the energy expenditure? I wonder if this could be scaled to provide ion drives for spacecraft in the future if power/thrust ratios were beneficial.
Slotin
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
There are many evidences, the scope of Universe is limited by "visibility", rather then by some physical surface. But the dispersion of light on CMB noise with distance appears in similar way, like the dispersion of light near black hole, which could create an illusion for internal observer, we are sitting inside of black hole, the event horizon of which determines scope of observable Universe.

The simplest determination, which model of Universe is more relevant is the symmetry of observable Universe: its visibility is the same at all directions, like the visibility of landscape under haze. If our Universe will be formed by black hole, it would be quite improbable, we would sit exactly just at the center of it. In this way, all speculations, we are sitting at the center of giant void should be considered with caution.

http://www.physor...748.html

This model still allows some artifacts, which follows from black hole model of Univers ("WMAP spot", "hall of mirrors")
Slotin
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2010
At the water surface, the density of ripples increases with distance due the gradual dispersion of light into extradimensions of water surface. This would create an illusion for observer, space-time expands with distance. This observation may lead to assumption, our universe is falling into some even much larger black hole. But I consider it quite speculative. The only rational thing of black hole model of Universe is dense Aether model - if our Universe is formed by interior of black hole, then the dense Aether model of vacuum arises naturally. But after then we can explain Universe expansion by it and we don't require black hole model of Universe at all. We even don't require mysterious and counterintuitive Big Bang model and cosmology will change into gradualistic model: the gallaxies would appear and dissapear continuously from streaks of dark matter like giant fluctuations of random gas. Personally I consider this model a more natural, then the various models involving explosions
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2010
The number of evidences for "flat Universe" model increases every day - for example there is an observation of remote pulsars, which undergo red shift, but their pulse frequency distribution not.

http://www.newsci...uld.html

There are observations of surprising old stars in seemingly young distant galaxies in Hubble depth field. This violates the black hole model of Universe too.

http://www.christ...005.html

Mysterious dark matter flow indicates too, the scope of Universe is much larger, then its apparent visibility scope

http://www.scienc...2829.htm
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
The number of evidences for "flat Universe" model increases every day - for example there is an observation of remote pulsars, which undergo red shift, but their pulse frequency distribution not.

Locally flat can be globally curved. There's no reason to assume that simply because we can see evidence for a flat universe that the entire thing is flat.
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2010
http://www.christ...005.html

Yes seneca. This explains it all. Do you even read your sources? or just google topics and paste URLs?
pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 09, 2010
First of all, it's just awesome that people are considering all of these ideas. It is amazing to read all of your posts and feel the greater mind at work. I always wonder if any professional physicists reads these forums. I know many physicists and I don't believe any of them get outside of their own small peer group to sample the larger space of ideas created by the collective mind. Because their paycheck and career are on the line they need to stick with the group or risk being cast out. Not coincidentally, much progress in physics was made by those who were slightly outside the main group. Einstein was a free-lance thinker, on his own. Heisenberg was isolated on a barren island (due to severe hay fever) when he conceived of matrix mechanics. Can't wait to see where the next big idea comes from...
pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 09, 2010
Second of all, is it possible that our universe is not IN a black hole, but still falling into one? I recall reading about the extreme effects on matter at an event horizon. Something macroscopic gets "spaghettified", completed stretched out, and also it's relative time slows down. What happens when a particle, or some high energy object (another black hole or something), approaches a black hole? Would the extreme tidal forces and warping of space and time blow it apart, and if you were within that explosion wouldn't it appear as if everything was receding away from you? It might explain the possible asymmetry of the Universe (if those observations are confirmed), and explain why the Universe appeared to start as a single point and is apparently going to keep expanding (i.e. getting stretched) until everything finally goes dark as more and more energy passes beyond the cosmological horizon (reaching the singularity).
Crucialitis
not rated yet Apr 09, 2010
I wonder if we're inside, the big bang is someone else's black hole and there's a large black hole of similar size in our universe that leads out to a white hole in a larger universe.

But if the in-hole and the out-hole were the same size, how would the universe expand? especially with many other out-holes potentially leading elsewhere?

What if there's no way out, and if you go in one, you'll never come out of one in the same universe you entered. You always move deeper down the chain.

Alternatively, what if there's another universe where it's packed with many small white holes spewing matter, and a massive black hole that's their currently active "big crunch" for the next few eons.

In that case, you can slip out through any black hole, but you have to navigate all the way to their "big crunch" to get back home - only to find yourself an unfathomable distance away from home at our "big bang."
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2010
..is it possible that our universe is not IN a black hole, but still falling into one?
Yes. In fractal noise (which I consider Universe at large scale) every structure is a part of another, larger structure, recursively. From perspective of tiny creatures, like the people, even relatively subtle structure would appear like black holes from sufficiently distant perspective. When we would get more close to such black hole, its event horizon would expand and cover whole sky - which is basically, what we are observing by now.

http://infohost.n...ise2.jpg
Morpheusjrjrjr
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
Alot of talk but no one answered a question about a point from witch everything has started, i mean outermost universe.
abouttime
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010


I suspect that size is a sort of illusion and and the smallest and largest are intimately connected in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

I liked the above quote alot. It's easy to want to assign some relative ordering to various possible universes connected by black and white holes, to ask questions of "in" and "out," "bigger" and smaller." For me, one image I like to contemplate in that regard is that of the Moebius strip, which has no "inside" or "outside," or rather, whose surface is both. Perhaps the connections between different universes are in some way like a 3-(4? more?)-dimensional Moebius strip, whereby some of these distinctions are no longer meaningful in the way we usually think about them.
abouttime
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
Oops! --Didn't mean to include my comment in the quote boundaries.
Shootist
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
The number of evidences for "flat Universe" model increases every day - for example there is an observation of remote pulsars, which undergo red shift, but their pulse frequency distribution not.

Locally flat can be globally curved. There's no reason to assume that simply because we can see evidence for a flat universe that the entire thing is flat.


And in fact GR shows the Universe is curved. Cosmological constant and all that, wot, wot?
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2010
The rings at the water surface are deformed too, so that the space-time formed by water surface is always curved & expanding from perspective of local observer - but it still remains flat & steady-state from more general perspective.

http://scienceali...ples.jpg

This doesn't say, from even more general perspective whole Universe is not somehow deformed independently to our observation (it would be quite improbable, if it would be completely flat in similar way, like water at curved surface of Earth) - but we should always consider the most trivial explanation first.

General relativity only requires Universe curved, i.e. it doesn't says, whether it's expanding or collapsing (compare the Friedman's models in this connection). Whereas from aether model follows, space-time should always expand with distance.
RobertKLR
not rated yet Apr 11, 2010
So universes come into existence as white hole fountains, or Big Bangs? Whenever matter collapses into a black hole with sufficient mass to create an anus where digested matter comes pouring out, then we get a universe. Is that close?
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
If you consider galaxy as a local Universe, yes. As a whole, Universe has infinite number of histories, which are observer dependent. It seems for me, the observable matter still condenses from dark matter streaks and evaporates into photons again, thus recycling the matter in the Universe in similar way, like water is circulating at Earth atmosphere. The total volume of space-time enclosed at particles bellow human / CMB scale corresponds the volume of cosmic space around it. At largest level the Universe just undulates like density fluctuations inside of gas in random process, which is similar to timelapse footage of clouds at the sky: some matter evaporates and some other condenses somewhere else.
bernards
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
Please stop the nonsense !!!
The number of POSSIBILITIES within a discipline of theoretical physics, such a Einstein's Relativity, is INFINITE. It is completely WORTHLESS to discuss and explore those possibilities, unless there is at least one EXPERIMENTAL indication pointing to such a possibility. Physicists should not talk nonsense by making PHANTASIES, but better use their precious time and skill for solving real problems.
rwinners
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
Please stop the nonsense !!!
The number of POSSIBILITIES within a discipline of theoretical physics, such a Einstein's Relativity, is INFINITE. It is completely WORTHLESS to discuss and explore those possibilities, unless there is at least one EXPERIMENTAL indication pointing to such a possibility. Physicists should not talk nonsense by making PHANTASIES, but better use their precious time and skill for solving real problems.


Here here! Speculation about our own 'universe' is completely worthless. This is insane.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2010
It is completely WORTHLESS to discuss and explore those possibilities, unless there is at least one EXPERIMENTAL indication pointing to such a possibility
You apparently missed of string theory, which survived forty years without experimental evidence without problem. Now, when this theory is indicating risk of disaster scenarios during LHC collisions, many people tend to ignore it completely.

First of all , contemporary science is a salary machine for people involved and it works quite differently, then you probably believe in your naive dreams.
taka
not rated yet Apr 13, 2010
Universe definitely sits into black hole, if the big bang theory is correct. When this bang happens all mass of universe was concentrated into tiny space, so it inevitable was inside black hole. And as nothing can escape the black hole the universe must still be inside.

That was known not just few years, but probably as long as the big bang theory exists, it is just not spoken widely.
random
not rated yet Apr 13, 2010
It's turtles all the way down...


broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
Universe definitely sits into black hole, if the big bang theory is correct.
Big Bang theory never contained such assumption. Instead of it, it considered an initial singularity as a sort of black hole in general relativity sense.

In this sense, black hole model of Universe is dual model to Big Bang, instead - it assumes matter at the place of space and vice-versa. The fact, both models appear relevant at the same time is connected with interesting property of black hole at event horizon, which enables to observe it both from inside, both from outside at the same moment.

But does it mean, our Universe is really formed by black hole? Nope, the same geometry of information spreading exhibits every flat foam without any density fluctuations in it.

For example, if Universe would be formed by interior of black hole, we couldn't observe gallaxies outside of its event horizon. Recent observations are indicating though, the most distant gallaxies still contain many very old stars
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
That was known not just few years, but probably as long as the big bang theory exists, it is just not spoken widely.
Mainstream science really knew about this model (it's not so difficult to invent it, after all) - but it ignored it quietly, as it leads directly into aether model of vacuum, which was indeed "disproved" by M-M experiments on behalf of relativity. You cannot tell the people, vacuum is not formed by particle matter and the vacuum is formed by black hole, until black hole remains stuff of particle matter.

In addition, the notion of black hole is quite different in general relativity. By general relativity black hole is formed by pinpoint singularity. Whereas black hole model of Universe requires, black hole should appear rather like common dense star of finite diameter. Such model is indeed quite different from GR model of BH.

In this way, the people who are saying such things are just demonstrating, they never understood both BigBang, both black hole model.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
Despite of its controversy, the black hole model of Universe is definitelly more realistic model, then the silly Big Bang model. In certain sense, it's the pure negation of the BugBang model, in which space was a void volume without any energy with exception of fields excerted by material objects. I want to warn the people before going from extreme to extreme. The dense aether model is more intruiging and complex in its consequences, then the black hole model of Universe - it just says, we should experience the interior of black hole at whatever place of our Universe. We cannot never reach its event horizon is simmilar way, like we can never reach the visibility boundary during travelling across foggy landscape. In this sense, the event horizon of Universe is merelly a virtual artifact for us. I would be really surprised, if we would find some - why? Because the assumption of event horizon brings an unnecessary initial condition, which Occam's razor principle generally avoids.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2010
BTW the virtuality of Universe event horizon is in AdS/CFT duality to virtuality of Higgs field. We can never find a limits of Universe at large or small scales from the same reason - if we would use a larger, more sensitive and complex devices, we could always extend these boundaries arbitrarily.

We are shifting boundaries of observable universe from the moment, when people developed photonic telescope and microscope. These devices allow us to interact with parts of Universe, which we could never interact directly. Now we could consider neutrino microscope, gravitational waves telescope and another advanced devices, which would allow us to observe through boundaries of observable Universe, as they appear by now.

In entropic model of universe network expands accordingly to the expansion of observers by connecting their brain states into network. The more particles we connect inside of our brains, the more particles we would see from Universe, proportionally.
taka
not rated yet Apr 15, 2010
Of course the Big Bang theory do not contain the Universe inside Black Hole assumption. It is not assumption but conclusion from it.
That may be interesting topic to study (psychology) of why mainstream physics prefer not to talk about that (I had read a book named Life Inside Black Hole written many tens of years ago by one physic, but it was not in English).

Actually these two theories are not alternatives. Or, more precisely they are not theories but just interpretations of mathematical equations (that are the theory) and both deal with the SAME equations. One (the Big Bang) gives insiders perspective and another (Black Hole) outsider perspective.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2010
that may be interesting topic to study (psychology) of why mainstream physics prefer not to talk about that
There are many evidence, mainstream physics avoids all concepts, which could lead into aether model. It's not just about black hole model of Universe, but concept od deBroglie wave, rest mass of photon and the way, in which relativistic mass is replaced by momentum, etc.

The point is, if you commit one single missunderstanding or lie at the very beginning, then this mistake propagates to all derived concepts, which leads into cognitive bias of the whole physics. Currently, mainstream prefers the notion of relative empty void space filled by fields only. Aether theory considers massive space formed (i.e. not just filled) by particles. These two interpretations are dual in fact, because particles can be realized only by curvature of space-time (or at least I don't see better solution). But the ignorance of one of this concepts leads into bias of whole physics.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2010
Another point is, even subtle mistake is behaving like density fluctuation of Aether and its reinforcing with time. If we would observe it from sufficient distance, it would change into selfreinforcing meme or conceptual black hole.

And vice-versa, if you would come close to black hole, it's event horizon would dissolve like at the case of string theory fuzzball - you would see, mainstream physics fights agains stance, which actually doesn't contradict any of the accepted paradigms, in fact.

The stance of mainstream physics doesn't differ from behavior of hard-mouthed individual - it avoids mistakes and the obstinate adherence of these mistakes leads into religious behavior. A trivial mistake from the beginning changed gradually into stubbornly defended dogma.

In this way, the physics could learn us many things about psychology of human society and vice-versa: the behavior of society illustrates many aspects of behavior of physical concepts, which are difficult to imagine.
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2010
.. It is not assumption but conclusion from it...
Of course not: black hole is pin-point singularity and the many years standing intepretation of Big Bang (promoted by even Hawking) was just an expanding ballon with colored dots.

During my previous discussion on physorg forum I explained many times, collapsar model of Universe gives a much better & exact illustration of reality, but such opinion was always labelled as a trollism. People apparently tend to believe in expanding balloons - albeit it can imagine nothing real behind it - because they're promoted by authorities and textbooks, rather then in realistic imaginable physical models.

Arthur Schopenhauer:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

The question is, what will happen, if black hole model of Universe will change into another "selfevident" truth. The people will never learn from their history.
broglia
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2010
..and both deal with the SAME equations..
This is apparent BS (or better a naive propaganda trying to cover conceptual mistakes of Big Bang model) - because classical model of Big Bang considered as a mass of Universe only mass of visible matter (4.6%). Latter the mass of dark matter was added (23%) and even later the mass of dark energy (72%).

But the black hole model of Universe is completelly different, because mass of one cubic centimeter of vacuum is larger then 10+92 kg by quantum mechanics. Whereas the Lambda-CDM model considers the value, predicted by relativity, which is 10+107x smaller. To consider whole Universe as a black hole would change all predictions of Lambda-CDM model in the range of many orders of magnitude toward completelly nonsensical values.

You cannot switch from one model into dual one without admitting it in simmilar way, like the model of epicycles cannot be switched into heliocentric model without change of all its underlying math.
broglia
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2010
The only math model relevant to "black hole" cosmology which I know is so called "shock wave cosmology", as proposed by J. Smoller and B. Temple [PNAS, 2002] and it was mostly ignored by mainstream.

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

Of course, this model is completelly different from Lambda-CDM model and it's more close to ekpyrotic cosmology.
broglia
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Roger Penrose - who is pretty smart guy, BTW - prefers hyperbolic geometry of Universe, in which Universe is curved both positivelly, both negativelly. The same geometry exhibits every subtle fluctuations of CMB or soliton waves inside of our brain and it's rather improbable, we could observe Universe in different way from geometry reasons ("Simillia Similibus Observatur" principle = every observer tends to see / interact with just these objects, which correspond his own shape and size). You can consider various subjectivistic models of observable reality in this connection.

So, if you really adhere to some deterministic shape of observable reality at global scale (which is indeed observer dependent), I'd reccomend to consider the nested hyperbolic geometry, which appears like fractal Hilbert plane composed of nested saddle roofs.

http://en.wikiped...dle_roof
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2010
4)Black hole model of Universe is completely different from existing Lambda-CDM model of Universe, which is generally called the "Big Bang model" and it's substantially more close to fractal Universe models, cyclic and ekpyrotic cosmology and holographic models of Universe, which could be unified in this way. Big Bang and inflation are rather particular interpretations of black hole model of Universe and it could be explained by shock waves, colliding mutually inside of large giant collapsar.

Nevertheless, from geometry of dense aether model follows, due the dispersion of light in vacuum both the observable universe, both its history would appear approximately the same from every place of it, thus relativizing all the above models with respect to place or even time at sufficiently global scale.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2010
Black hole model of Universe therefore could be falsify in the same way, like "Big Bang model" - simply by observation of objects outside of its event horizon or the observation of objects older then the age of Universe. For example, we cannot expect well developed galaxies outside of black hole, forming our Universe.

http://www.space....axy.html

More news stories

Phase transiting to a new quantum universe

(Phys.org) —Recent insight and discovery of a new class of quantum transition opens the way for a whole new subfield of materials physics and quantum technologies.

When things get glassy, molecules go fractal

Colorful church windows, beads on a necklace and many of our favorite plastics share something in common—they all belong to a state of matter known as glasses. School children learn the difference between ...

A 'quantum leap' in encryption technology

Toshiba Research Europe, BT, ADVA Optical Networking and the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), the UK's National Measurement Institute, today announced the first successful trial of Quantum Key Distribution ...

Genetic code of the deadly tsetse fly unraveled

Mining the genome of the disease-transmitting tsetse fly, researchers have revealed the genetic adaptions that allow it to have such unique biology and transmit disease to both humans and animals.