To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Black Holes, Big Bangs, and Singularities
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Astrophysics Kid
Alright, so while watching an episode of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" the other day, I had an idea.

See, one of the up-and-coming theories in cosmology is the Multiverse Theory, as discussed in Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" book. See, the idea is that our universe isn't a singular one, but is like a bud on a vine. Our universe spawned from another universe, kind of like how a tadpole grows a leg - and, from our universe, one (possibly multiple) other universi (I guess that would be the plural to "universe") will spawn from ours. This cycle goes on infinitely, always creating new universi. This, in a nutshell, is the Multiverse theory.

My idea comes in here. Black holes are, what many physicists consider, a singularity. That is, the matter that these objects swallow is compressed down into a really, really small point. It is this small point that generates the gravitational force driving the black hole in its quest for consuming matter. Most of you, hopefully, are familiar with the concept of Hawking Radiation.

[Sidenote: If you don't have a degree in mathematics or physics, don't even bother looking at the math. Your face might implode upon itself.]

So, if you're not familiar with Hawking radiation, I'll try to sum it up here, as it appears in Stephen Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell. The British physicist Stephen Hawking said that black holes - these things with immense gravitational attraction - would evaporate into nothingness. But... how? Well, it lies with virtual particle pairs. See, the very edge of a black hole is called the event horizon - at this point, if you're beyond the event horizon, you will most likely not escape the gravity of the black hole. Now, from the energy of this event horizon, the quantum fluctuations create virtual particle pairs. Now, the particle and antiparticle pair should annihilate each other, but one particle gets sucked back into the hole, and the other is launched into space. Now, remember that matter is just energy in another form, so energy has escaped from a black hole! A black hole is going to keep doing this, until it evaporates.

Now, here my idea begins to defy convention. First of all, what if the matter eaten by a black hole lies on the fabric of spacetime? This singularity could lie on the very edge of our "manifold", or set of dimensions. "The edge of our universe," if you will. Now, what if, instead of the black hole (all the matter it consumed) evaporating... what if the black hole's "presence" in our manifold is evaporating?

User posted image

To illustrate what I mean, look at the above picture. Now, my idea states that it's not the matter in the middle evaporating, but the entire top half of the black hole. Now, once the ties it has to our manifold disappear, the gateway between here and there collapses, and the singularity lying on the edge of our spacetime then explodes into the empty space outside our universe, creating a Big Bang and another universe. The Multiverse theory realized.

Kinda nifty!

Now, I know that this has some glaring problems. A prime example is my idea of "the black hole's presence in our manifold." Well, a black hole isn't a thing with a cone of material or a material presence, but an effect caused by the warping of spacetime. So, exactly how this would "evaporate," I don't know.

If anyone has any ideas, questions, comments, input... it's all welcome!

Though, do be civilized. tongue.gif
amrit
there is only one universe, no "paralel universe"
transformation of matter into space and back is contunous
universe has no begenning and no end
it is renewing itself

See: Sorli A., Fiscaletti D. (2005). Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing Systems Of the Universe, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 2, Num 6
www.ejtp.com
Zephir
QUOTE (Astrophysics Kid+Apr 16 2006, 08:34 PM)
...and the singularity lying on the edge of our spacetime then explodes into the empty space outside our universe, creating a Big Bang and another universe...

Well, this idea is pretty convenient with the idea of Universe as the black hole or gravastar. Consider my no such pretty, but animated scheme bellow:

user posted image user posted image

Concerning the multiverse hypothesis, it has slightly different meaning in the M-theory and others, because such concept supposes, the Universes aren't separated by some singularity.
czeslaw
If the Black Hole is created as a Gravastar it may grows like our Universe. It will be a hierarchical system of the Universe. Black Hole - our Observable Universe - outer Universe. This idea of the hierarchy has a special name in cosmology (I forgot).
bokusman
Excellent Astrophysics Kid. I've long been a believer of parallel Universes. Now we have multiple Universes. last night I stumbled on the exact thought as you have outlined after I saw a program on Steven Hawking. Hawking said that matter travels via black holes beyond our universe. My theory wasn't quite as technical as yours, but in essence I agree with you. It answers questions re the big bang theory, and where matter goes in a black hole.

I thought that maybe our universe is simply composed from a collapsed star from another Universe and that that star was of gigantic size. (Size being relative, so whose measuring!) and the scenario goes on infinitely.

I love this theory, it makes sense to me as a casual observer of physics.

My other theory is that anything one can imagine is possible (though maybe improbable) This helps me believe in everything. I don't just mean within our universe now that we have others to consider and I'm not referring to the supernatural.
Zarabtul
I think the best relationship is to look at how other life grows. Our universe is going to act like everything else we've encountered in this aspect. We are a very small part of a very big organism. May we have been banged here or not by a Big Bang...

I do agree that a big bang would certainly have some residual effects. I'd love to know more about those residual effects, however I just don't see the application applying to my theories or undertandings. It matters not.



Staying should be much more important, or finding new.
blue_bottle
I'm just curiouys as to what you mean by multiuniverse.

Do you mean a place where every alternative choice of man is played in its own universe? Or do you mean a place where the 6 "constants" in the universe vary by slight amounts, causing the creation of an inhospitable universe?

I'm not a great fan of this theory, but I'm open to any ideas that may arise from it.
Guest_AARON
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR THEORY. I HAVE ONLY 1 QUESTION. HOW DID THE FIRST BIGBANG HAPPEN? WHAT CREATED ALL THE SPACE AND TIME WE SEE AND LIVE IN TODAY?

IF YOU WANT TO REPLY BACK E-MAIL ME AT

altoids_422@Yahoo.com

P.S. The only thing I hate about parallel unuverse theorys in that if there true, my life means nothing.
Bryn Richards
The 'universes spawn other universes' multiverse theory, is ridiculous because of 1 thing - It negates a true beginning. My own alternate multiverse theory, posits that all universes began at the same moment together - When Time began.
Also, I disagree with any suggestion that black holes are like "tunnels" to alternate realities. I don't think it's the case where you join black hole A with white hole B. The fact that we've never seen any white holes, pretty much disproves any assumptions that black holes can connect to other universes, otherwise we would have had white holes connect to us in the droves.
Why can't people just think of black holes as points in space, which are merely large concentrations of matter, due to gravity. This whole 'connecting to other universes' lark, is just speculation. I have never in all my time, ever seen a good reason for such an assumption. It's just people with wild imaginations and next to no evidence.
TenGig
QUOTE
This whole 'connecting to other universes' lark, is just speculation. I have never in all my time, ever seen a good reason for such an assumption.


Oh you will. Just you wait and see. Muhahaha MUHAHAHAHAHA ph34r.gif
kaneda
bokusman. There is no evidence for parallel universes or multiverses. They remain just an idea at present.

Matter in a black hole is beyond our universe since it is not going to come back. But not in another universe.

Stars have a maximum amount of matter they can hold before they literally fall apart. There are supergiant stars of which much is of very little density near the "surface". Why not our universe is an atom in a larger universe, etc?
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 28 2007, 04:04 PM)
Matter in a black hole is beyond our universe since it is not going to come back.

The matter within a singularity, is not 'beyond' our universe, it is very much inside it. When people say that "Nothing can escape a black hole", I think they are talking purely from the standpoint that current physics dictates (According to Steven Hawking, that is). They make the effort(s) to state "Nothing can escape", but invest no time or brainpower at all, investigating whether there are 'other' ways for matter to escape.
I myself fervently believe that matter can escape a black hole, but as fundamental-esque particles, broken-down by the singularity.
To me, it seems like another one of nature's cycles. Suns fuse matter together, to heavier atoms, whilst black holes break it down into it's fundamental form(s). The common theory of "Not even light can escape", is unsubstantiated. Sure, the singularity is a point which is completely black, suggesting that light does not escape. However, my theory on this, is that perhaps light breaks down or contributes to the breakdown of matter, into fundamental-esque particles. Perhaps it is only black, because all the light which travels to the singularity, is consumed by the 'recycling' process of the singularity, before it has a chance to escape again. That is my theory anyway, take it or leave it. However I suggest you at least think on it.
Nick
THE UNIVERSE IS NOT IN A MULTIVERSE. IT IS EXPANDING TO AN EVER GREATER SIZE THEREFOR YOU CANNOT FIT IT INTO ANYTHING BIGGER. THAT'S A FACT. ITS AN HYPERSPHERE tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Zephir
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 28 2007, 07:04 PM)
Matter in a black hole is beyond our universe since it is not going to come back. But not in another universe.

Why not? It depends on your definition of Universe.

user posted image
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 28 2007, 05:57 PM)
THE UNIVERSE IS NOT IN A MULTIVERSE. IT IS EXPANDING TO AN EVER GREATER SIZE THEREFOR YOU CANNOT FIT IT INTO ANYTHING BIGGER. THAT'S A FACT. ITS AN HYPERSPHERE

That logic would only work, if the universes developed within some 'finite space' outside of our universe, and that other universes were simply distant objects within it.

I don't like such theories..

My own superior theory, on the 'location' of alternate universes, is such that they are able to exist right on top of our own, but that we don't see them, feel them or interact with them in any way, simply because there is a multiversal law of non-interaction between universes, which transcends the laws of individual universes. It's something I came up with, and I will elaborate and give reasons for it, if asked smile.gif

Also, I don't have a problem with the universe being a sphere. But a hypersphere? - There is no evidence to suggest that the universe is anything more than 3 dimensions - x,y,z....and no, Time is not a dimension, and I will elaborate on that too, if asked.
Nick
You can stack your universes all you like but there is only one in my opinion and there is nothing outside it. It is an HYPERSPHERE. It is finite yet unbounded. It is closed because it curves back on itself. It is a seemless whole. tongue.gif

YOU HAVE A SUPERIOR ILLUSION.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 28 2007, 11:06 PM)
You can stack your universes all you like but there is only one in my opinion and there is nothing outside it. It is an HYPERSPHERE. It is finite yet unbounded. It is closed because it curves back on itself. It is a seemless whole.

Only one universe huh. Well how do you answer the question of "Why 'this' universe, Why 'this' outcome, Why not something else?". It makes no logical sense why this outcome should be the only one. It's something I call 'The favouritism problem'.
Also, you say the universe is a hypersphere, yet there is no evidence to suggest that there are any more dimensions that the three which we observe (X,Y,Z). Furthermore, this whole stifling concept of the universe either being 'open/closed' is very limited in scope. It only comprehends universal evolution inside the framework of current understanding of space-time, which I happen to think is flawed and false. I mean, I don't care about comments such as "It is a seamless whole" - That means nothing to me.
my name
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue] Sorry, but correct me if im wrong, i thought the idea of the universe was that the word "universe" ment absolutaly everything. so there should be no plural. Instead of saying theres more than one everything(UNIVERSE) there should be another word for it like "a galaxy", but it contains groups of galaxies (lets call them "x's" for now), so there would be many of these X's in a universe.
Robert Oliveira
We are programmed to receive. all the multiverses are all around us all the time occupying the same space and time. They are also everywhere else. its just that we can only see and feel this one. sometimes we can get some static, but we will never truly exist in another multiverse. to see two is to see them all, all equal one hence a singularity and bzzzt we are right back where we started. fat man skinny man bigggest thing in existence smallest thing in existence both the same. oneness
Nick
Why do you need to put the universe into something bigger?
Guest_Chris
personaly i dont believe in multple universes.... we can hardly understand 1 let alone many... but beside that i dont think the idea of black holes being gateways to alternate universes should be shotdown so quickly. (assuming there are other universes to link to...) although the singularity of a black hole contains all of its mass, and oine would think it cannot escape from there, no one actualy knows what happens once inside a blackhole. maybe they reach a certain threshhold and all the mass inside them blooms into another universe, by means of a bigbang. the blackhole could then fade from our universe once this has happend. or maybe the singularity of the black hole is realy just another universe condensed into one point. realy no one knows...... but the chances of the blackhole being a gateway to otheruniverses is unlikely. because for this theory to be true, and our universe is the product of a blackhole in some other universe, than matter from the existing universe will still be spewing into our own.
Guest_Chris
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Mar 29 2007, 07:33 AM)
Only one universe huh. Well how do you answer the question of "Why 'this' universe, Why 'this' outcome, Why not something else?". It makes no logical sense why this outcome should be the only one. It's something I call 'The favouritism problem'.
Also, you say the universe is a hypersphere, yet there is no evidence to suggest that there are any more dimensions that the three which we observe (X,Y,Z).

k but if you think of it your way its even crazier..... how many universes are there? is there anything outside the universe.... does each universe have its own outside 'thing' or does one 'thing' encompass all universes... and is thier anything higher than that? and wut about alternate dimensions for the choices that everyone makes and the random events that would be different for everyone, meaning an infinite number of dimensions, could you bridge these dimensions and BLAH BLAH BLAH god it goes on forever..... the reason for thinking there is only one universe for now..... is that we dont understand our own.... let alone the fact that there might be others.......

and as for other dimentions, we already understand that there can be more than 3.... for instance the hypercube is an example of a 4 dimentional cube.... problem is it can only be explaied mthematicaly. even if a 4 dimenional object were to exist in our universe, we would only see it as a 3 dimentional object, only when it rotated would you be able to notice its 4th dimention by its irregular motion.
Nick
Black holes are subatomic masses KNOWN AS A SINGULARITY.
RussT
QUOTE (Astrophysics Kid+Apr 16 2006, 05:34 PM)
Alright, so while watching an episode of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" the other day, I had an idea. 

See, one of the up-and-coming theories in cosmology is the Multiverse Theory, as discussed in Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" book.  See, the idea is that our universe isn't a singular one, but is like a bud on a vine.  Our universe spawned from another universe, kind of like how a tadpole grows a leg - and, from our universe, one (possibly multiple) other universi (I guess that would be the plural to "universe") will spawn from ours.  This cycle goes on infinitely, always creating new universi.  This, in a nutshell, is the Multiverse theory.

My idea comes in here.  Black holes are, what many physicists consider, a singularity.  That is, the matter that these objects swallow is compressed down into a really, really small point.  It is this small point that generates the gravitational force driving the black hole in its quest for consuming matter.  Most of you, hopefully, are familiar with the concept of Hawking Radiation.

[Sidenote:  If you don't have a degree in mathematics or physics, don't even bother looking at the math.  Your face might implode upon itself.]

So, if you're not familiar with Hawking radiation, I'll try to sum it up here, as it appears in Stephen Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell.  The British physicist Stephen Hawking said that black holes - these things with immense gravitational attraction - would evaporate into nothingness.  But... how?  Well, it lies with virtual particle pairs.  See, the very edge of a black hole is called the event horizon - at this point, if you're beyond the event horizon, you will most likely not escape the gravity of the black hole.  Now, from the energy of this event horizon, the quantum fluctuations create virtual particle pairs.  Now, the particle and antiparticle pair should annihilate each other, but one particle gets sucked back into the hole, and the other is launched into space.  Now, remember that matter is just energy in another form, so energy has escaped from a black hole!  A black hole is going to keep doing this, until it evaporates.

Now, here my idea begins to defy convention.  First of all, what if the matter eaten by a black hole lies on the fabric of spacetime?  This singularity could lie on the very edge of our "manifold", or set of dimensions.  "The edge of our universe," if you will.  Now, what if, instead of the black hole (all the matter it consumed) evaporating... what if the black hole's "presence" in our manifold is evaporating?

User posted image

To illustrate what I mean, look at the above picture.  Now, my idea states that it's not the matter in the middle evaporating, but the entire top half of the black hole.  Now, once the ties it has to our manifold disappear, the gateway between here and there collapses, and the singularity lying on the edge of our spacetime then explodes into the empty space outside our universe, creating a Big Bang and another universe.  The Multiverse theory realized.

Kinda nifty!

Now, I know that this has some glaring problems.  A prime example is my idea of "the black hole's presence in our manifold."  Well, a black hole isn't a thing with a cone of material or a material presence, but an effect caused by the warping of spacetime.  So, exactly how this would "evaporate," I don't know.

If anyone has any ideas, questions, comments, input... it's all welcome!

Though, do be civilized.  tongue.gif

Multi-Verse is the answer for explaining the 'initial conditions' for how our universe is working wink.gif

The answer actually lies in the 'one place' mainstream has NEVER gone...where mankind has NEVER gone before wink.gif

"Through the SMBH's"

SO, the 'top funnel' in your pic IS the Event Horizon of a SMBH in 'that other Universe', The middle part of the pic, where the funnel is the smallest is the Ring Singularity, and the 'Bottom open funnel' is the 'white hole' which is A Void between a cluster of galaxies, where Non-Baryonic Dark Matter/Point Particles is being released to OUR universe and makes of ALL of "SPACE" traveling at "c" in Every/ALL directions.


This is actually so simple.

I will just ask the 'right questions' and go from there.

What is on the 'other side' of the Big Bang naked singularity?

Most likely answer...another Universe.

Does that universe work like our universe does?

Most likely answer...sure, it just makes sense that that physical processes would be the same.

Enter Lee Smolin's 'determinent constant at the 'pit of black holes'.

SO, that 'other universe' should have SMBH's as ours does.

Enter Einstein-Rosen Bridges...which are simply the SMBH's in 'that other universe'

At the 'pit of those SMBH's' is the Ring Singularity, where everything that goes into those get Spaghettified and 'stripped' of ALL its baryonic qualities, and comes through to OUR universe as "Point Particles"/Gravity traveling at "c".

In other words, Naked Singularities CANNOT exist...SO, just 'replace' one naked singularity WITH the Singularities that are IN the SMBH's of 'that other universe, sending US OUR "Space"/Point Particles/Gravity (Lisa Randall/Gravity Leaking to our universe). That is coming to us in ALL of OUR Voids!

That is what they are calling the "Extra Gravity" that is needed for the galaxy rotation curves/cluster dynamics...BUT it is ALL of space (96% NOT 22%) and it is traveling at "c".

That makes Einsteins SR partially correct...light is traveling at "c" in Vacua/empty space. BUT he did NOT know that his empty space was FULL of "Exotic Matter"/Non-baryonic Planck length Point Particles.

SO, that is a "Dimensionless Background Gravity Field" (DBGF) that goes right through ALL baryonic matter.

SO, Einstein was NOT able to properly construct the maths for SR/GR

I realize this is very difficult for all of mainstream to take in, BUT I can explain the rest of this, including how these Point Particles are actually the Anti-Matter, and why NO ONE has been able to figure out..."Where did the Anti-Matter GO"!!!
space-time obsessed
All this is way over my head, but I originally though the multi-universe was a load of crap. This has opened a completely new aspect to it. Thanks.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.