http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
Aah well hmm.
That would certainly explain what black holes are for, they're galaxy making machines! factory's where little universes are created...makes total sense to me that they have a bigger purpose then to suck dying universes in...now we can decipher whether they recycle them. Awesome!
Thanks for pointing this out!
Thanks for pointing this out!
The problem with that is this : For the black hole that supposedly created our universe to be created, you need matter. Where did this matter come from?
And this comes from the same people who say that nothing can escape a black hole.
Oh the hypocrisy
Oh the hypocrisy
Now what represent a questioning mind if not the ability to adopt to new insight's ;)
Look at me, i'm a prime suspect :::)))
Look at me, i'm a prime suspect :::)))
QUOTE (Gehn+Jul 4 2007, 05:19 PM)
The problem with that is this : For the black hole that supposedly created our universe to be created, you need matter. Where did this matter come from?
It's tough to wrap your head around, but you don't need an infinite amount of matter to create a new universe with an infinite amount of matter in it. If the theory is correct, all of the black holes in our universe (10^18, iirc) could each create a universe containing an infinite amount of matter analogue.
This is easier to understand if you've done some aggressive learning of higher-level maths, though.
It's tough to wrap your head around, but you don't need an infinite amount of matter to create a new universe with an infinite amount of matter in it. If the theory is correct, all of the black holes in our universe (10^18, iirc) could each create a universe containing an infinite amount of matter analogue.
This is easier to understand if you've done some aggressive learning of higher-level maths, though.
Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, but are easily interchangable (in nuclear reactions).
The universe was created out of a singularity. I don't think anyone believes this was the result of a white hole, which has not been observed, and is only theoretical.
Astronomy
The universe was created out of a singularity. I don't think anyone believes this was the result of a white hole, which has not been observed, and is only theoretical.
Astronomy
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 4 2007, 06:54 PM)
It's tough to wrap your head around, but you don't need an infinite amount of matter to create a new universe with an infinite amount of matter in it. If the theory is correct, all of the black holes in our universe (10^18, iirc) could each create a universe containing an infinite amount of matter analogue.
This is easier to understand if you've done some aggressive learning of higher-level maths, though.
That would run contrary to thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence, to create a new universe with an infinite amount of energy, would require an infinite amount of energy to begin with. No learning of 'higher-level maths' can refute that arguement.
This is easier to understand if you've done some aggressive learning of higher-level maths, though.
That would run contrary to thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence, to create a new universe with an infinite amount of energy, would require an infinite amount of energy to begin with. No learning of 'higher-level maths' can refute that arguement.
So in the end it comes down to, what exactly are 'matter'. How does it materialize in our universe. There are those who say that the 'fuzzy whatever' space around us have a possibility to create matter? Doesn't that too violate thermodynamics?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 4 2007, 10:11 PM)
That would run contrary to thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence, to create a new universe with an infinite amount of energy, would require an infinite amount of energy to begin with. No learning of 'higher-level maths' can refute that arguement.
"Basic Thermodynamics" doesn't really tell the whole story. We don't have a complete physical description of the Universe, only bite-sized chunks which we can't (yet) interconnect into a cohesive whole.
"Matter and Energy" are only really concepts that we worry about in 3D (or 4D, maybe 5D) space. I cannot do the concept justice on a BBS*. I would heavily suggest that you pay attention in your physics studies, and see that some of the theoretical physicists agree with my interpretation of what they are proposing.
Of course, all this "white hole" stuff is still theoretical - the maths haven't been proven, they merely look decently internally-consistent. Remember, we don't yet have a proper physical description of the Universe.
*Really, I'd need diagrams and stuff. And probably eye contact to see if I'm communicating properly. In a nutshell, though, I can ask you to imagine a line between two points. There are a number of points in between those founding points that can be used as a basis to form a perpendicular plane to the original line. Describing a plane doesn't detract - at all - from any of the other points on that line. Of course, this is only a 3D thought experiment. But also remember that "matter and energy" are descriptions of events in our 4D (visible) universe, and aren't a proper description of what's probably really out there. Of course, I believe there's an infinite amount of energy (/matter) out there, but I'm saying that it doesn't require an infinite amount to "white hole" to a new complete universe.
So, don't take my word for it (of course). Just keep your eyes open when reading the literature.
"Basic Thermodynamics" doesn't really tell the whole story. We don't have a complete physical description of the Universe, only bite-sized chunks which we can't (yet) interconnect into a cohesive whole.
"Matter and Energy" are only really concepts that we worry about in 3D (or 4D, maybe 5D) space. I cannot do the concept justice on a BBS*. I would heavily suggest that you pay attention in your physics studies, and see that some of the theoretical physicists agree with my interpretation of what they are proposing.
Of course, all this "white hole" stuff is still theoretical - the maths haven't been proven, they merely look decently internally-consistent. Remember, we don't yet have a proper physical description of the Universe.
*Really, I'd need diagrams and stuff. And probably eye contact to see if I'm communicating properly. In a nutshell, though, I can ask you to imagine a line between two points. There are a number of points in between those founding points that can be used as a basis to form a perpendicular plane to the original line. Describing a plane doesn't detract - at all - from any of the other points on that line. Of course, this is only a 3D thought experiment. But also remember that "matter and energy" are descriptions of events in our 4D (visible) universe, and aren't a proper description of what's probably really out there. Of course, I believe there's an infinite amount of energy (/matter) out there, but I'm saying that it doesn't require an infinite amount to "white hole" to a new complete universe.
So, don't take my word for it (of course). Just keep your eyes open when reading the literature.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 4 2007, 10:06 AM)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
Aah well hmm.
Well if the holographic principle is correct, then I would be suprised if every black hole wasn't a baby universe.
As far as entropy is concerned, I see no reason why the overall system can't be closed. Actually the whole system would be complex enought that being part of some organism is not that far fetched.
Aah well hmm.
Well if the holographic principle is correct, then I would be suprised if every black hole wasn't a baby universe.
As far as entropy is concerned, I see no reason why the overall system can't be closed. Actually the whole system would be complex enought that being part of some organism is not that far fetched.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 5 2007, 02:38 PM)
I would be surprised if every black hole wasn't a baby universe
For example, even the density fluctuations inside of white dwarfs or neutron stars core can dance and undulate mutually, like the Aether inside of particles, maybe they can even form the more complex aggregates similar the atom nuclei and so on.
While here's no sharp conceptual boundary between the black holes and neutron stars, we should simply establish some criterions, what the Universe already is and what isn't.
Of course, if our Universe generation is formed by the black hole, then the AWT and whole the Aether idea is farseeing scientific concept and their opponents are dumb idiots, which don't understand the physical motivations of Aether concept and vice-versa.
Due the reciprocal character of the space-time curvature, described by AWT it isn't surprising, the most advance theories, which are most close to the Aether mechanism understanding are the most pronounced opponents of Aether concept at the same time... Even the black hole interior differs very much from black hole exterior, although both they're formed by the same stuff.
For example, even the density fluctuations inside of white dwarfs or neutron stars core can dance and undulate mutually, like the Aether inside of particles, maybe they can even form the more complex aggregates similar the atom nuclei and so on.
While here's no sharp conceptual boundary between the black holes and neutron stars, we should simply establish some criterions, what the Universe already is and what isn't.
Of course, if our Universe generation is formed by the black hole, then the AWT and whole the Aether idea is farseeing scientific concept and their opponents are dumb idiots, which don't understand the physical motivations of Aether concept and vice-versa.
Due the reciprocal character of the space-time curvature, described by AWT it isn't surprising, the most advance theories, which are most close to the Aether mechanism understanding are the most pronounced opponents of Aether concept at the same time...
Even the black hole interior differs very much from black hole exterior, although both they're formed by the same stuff.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 5 2007, 07:13 AM)
For example, even the density fluctuations inside of white dwarfs or neutron stars core can dance and undulate mutually, like the Aether inside of particles, they can form the aggregates like the atom nuclei and so on.
We should simply establish the criterion, what the Universe is and what isn't. Of course, if our Universe generation is formed by the black hole, then the AWT and whole the Aether idea is farseeing scientific concept and their opponents are dumb idiots and vice-versa.
I wish it was easier to track down resources on the Holographic Principle.
From my current understanding, the features of our 'Holographic Universe' seem to describe the properties of a black hole, entropy being expressed as area rather than volume in particular supports this. I can see no reason why black holes in our universe would also house holographic universes if this was the case.
We should simply establish the criterion, what the Universe is and what isn't. Of course, if our Universe generation is formed by the black hole, then the AWT and whole the Aether idea is farseeing scientific concept and their opponents are dumb idiots and vice-versa.
I wish it was easier to track down resources on the Holographic Principle.
From my current understanding, the features of our 'Holographic Universe' seem to describe the properties of a black hole, entropy being expressed as area rather than volume in particular supports this. I can see no reason why black holes in our universe would also house holographic universes if this was the case.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 5 2007, 04:24 PM)
the features of our 'Holographic Universe' seem to describe the properties of a black hole
I don't see any apparent advantage of 'Holographic Universe' over the Aether theory, the more, the holographic concept is completely abstract, steady state description, which lacks the dynamic of matter evolution. After all, every physical interpretation of holographic concept would depend on some inertia based theory anyway.
Even the hologram cannot exist without some supporting matter, which has created it.
I don't see any apparent advantage of 'Holographic Universe' over the Aether theory, the more, the holographic concept is completely abstract, steady state description, which lacks the dynamic of matter evolution. After all, every physical interpretation of holographic concept would depend on some inertia based theory anyway.
Even the hologram cannot exist without some supporting matter, which has created it.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 5 2007, 07:27 AM)
I don't see any advantage of 'Holographic Universe', the more, the holographic concept is completely abstract and every physical interpretation of it would depend on some inertia based theory anyway.
Even the hologram cannot exist without some supporting matter, which has created it.
That and if everything is 2d, why does it have to be wrapped around a 3d space to work?
Even the hologram cannot exist without some supporting matter, which has created it.
That and if everything is 2d, why does it have to be wrapped around a 3d space to work?
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 5 2007, 04:32 PM)
That and if everything is 2d, why does it have to be wrapped around a 3d space to work?
By AWT the Aether is infinite/zero dimensional concept, the 2D Aether foam is just the most phase of Aether with respect to the causual energy spreading. After all, the 0D and 1D fluctuations of Aether are even more dense, then the 3D fluctuations. The 3D fluctuations is the minimal number of dimensions, which enables the complexity of the evolution. Even the 3D platonic group is more complex, then the 2D or 4D one. Note the connection of the nested 3D foam composed from platonics to the golden mean ratio.
By AWT the Aether is infinite/zero dimensional concept, the 2D Aether foam is just the most phase of Aether with respect to the causual energy spreading. After all, the 0D and 1D fluctuations of Aether are even more dense, then the 3D fluctuations. The 3D fluctuations is the minimal number of dimensions, which enables the complexity of the evolution. Even the 3D platonic group is more complex, then the 2D or 4D one. Note the connection of the nested 3D foam composed from platonics to the golden mean ratio.
The concept of an enclosed contained universe is essentially analogous to an black hole with respect to the fact that if it is contained it must have an event horizon like an black hole meaning traveling in what you perceive is a straight line isn't whereas your spacecraft would be merely circumnavigating the area of the universe in circles like en-turning the the perimeter of the world.
Questions:
Should the Universe turn out to be a is a contained system does it spin. Is there an escape velocity from it like exiting Earths orbit. Meaning in terms of something that has mass in something other than xyz3D mass composition.
What is the universe contained in? Another larger universe where the laws/properties are different?
Have we observed blue shift in the heavens meaning matter entering our contained Universe as if it were a black hole?
whilst perhaps our universe is partially overlapped by other universes like ours were matter sorts/shifts itself around in circles like currents in an ocean?
Questions:
Should the Universe turn out to be a is a contained system does it spin. Is there an escape velocity from it like exiting Earths orbit. Meaning in terms of something that has mass in something other than xyz3D mass composition.
What is the universe contained in? Another larger universe where the laws/properties are different?
Have we observed blue shift in the heavens meaning matter entering our contained Universe as if it were a black hole?
whilst perhaps our universe is partially overlapped by other universes like ours were matter sorts/shifts itself around in circles like currents in an ocean?
QUOTE (Soultechs+Jul 5 2007, 04:51 PM)
What is the universe contained in? Another larger universe where the laws/properties are different?
If the Universe is formed by black hole, it just means, the physical laws are principally the same, like inside of our Universe, i.e. they're remain based on the gradient driven Newtonian mechanics. Because every matter would evaporate even before reaching of the black hole surface, we cannot observe any blue shift from matter falling from outside.
Instead of it, we can observe the reflections of distant stars from the internal side of "our" black hole, which is behaving like the giant spherical mirror due the total reflection phenomena. This image is strongly red shifted, so it will interfere heavily with the microwave background of Universe.
The key concept is to recognize what a black hole would look like from the inside.
I'm thinking it'd look a lot like our universe.
If the Universe is formed by black hole, it just means, the physical laws are principally the same, like inside of our Universe, i.e. they're remain based on the gradient driven Newtonian mechanics. Because every matter would evaporate even before reaching of the black hole surface, we cannot observe any blue shift from matter falling from outside.
Instead of it, we can observe the reflections of distant stars from the internal side of "our" black hole, which is behaving like the giant spherical mirror due the total reflection phenomena. This image is strongly red shifted, so it will interfere heavily with the microwave background of Universe.
QUOTE (Soultechs+Jul 5 2007, 04:51 PM)
whilst perhaps our universe is partially overlapped by other universes like ours were matter sorts/shifts itself around in circles like currents in an ocean?
This is not very probable, because the black holes in the "outer universe" generation should be even more sparse and dispersed, then inside of our Universe. Furthermore it's difficult to imagine the pair of black holes intersecting mutually under formation of two or more independent universes. Instead of it, they would form rather the single connected blob with the common interior, don't you think? This is why, I don't see the hypothesis of the "bouncing Universe" predicted by LQG theory as a very plausible. The formation of such Universe would require the presence of dense cluster of black holes, exchanging their matter by gravitational waves regularly, like the quantum wave packets forming elementary particles.
While the super-symmetry approach requires, the outer Universe will become even more sparse and deserted, then our generation of Universe. Therefore I would prefer the "avalanche-like" flash model of inertia propagation through Aether and the Universe creation (see the animation on the right). But it's rather difficult to predict the behavior of Universe expertly from so distant perspective. Every else model can become relevant here as well. The math formalization of such model is not very relevant here at all, until such model isn't well justified from the robust boolean logic perspective.
This is not very probable, because the black holes in the "outer universe" generation should be even more sparse and dispersed, then inside of our Universe. Furthermore it's difficult to imagine the pair of black holes intersecting mutually under formation of two or more independent universes. Instead of it, they would form rather the single connected blob with the common interior, don't you think? This is why, I don't see the hypothesis of the "bouncing Universe" predicted by LQG theory as a very plausible. The formation of such Universe would require the presence of dense cluster of black holes, exchanging their matter by gravitational waves regularly, like the quantum wave packets forming elementary particles.
While the super-symmetry approach requires, the outer Universe will become even more sparse and deserted, then our generation of Universe. Therefore I would prefer the "avalanche-like" flash model of inertia propagation through Aether and the Universe creation (see the animation on the right). But it's rather difficult to predict the behavior of Universe expertly from so distant perspective. Every else model can become relevant here as well. The math formalization of such model is not very relevant here at all, until such model isn't well justified from the robust boolean logic perspective.
If our universe "started" from a black hole, would that not imply there was matter>space>time, albeit in very little comparative quantities, thus the universe already existed? I believe, that for what ever reason, energy simply made the conversion to matter, thus creating time/space. That before this, only energy existed.
Am i wrong in saying that holography is a rather nice tool/proof of how to show the concept of hidden dimensions? As it is made from 2D but perceived by us as 3D?
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 5 2007, 01:24 PM)
I wish it was easier to track down resources on the Holographic Principle.
I suggest purchasing a book on the topic by Leonard Susskind. Better bang-for-the-buck than any pair of movies that you'll watch!
*I've never read a book by Leonard Susskind: the books I do read reference his writings though.
I suggest purchasing a book on the topic by Leonard Susskind. Better bang-for-the-buck than any pair of movies that you'll watch!
*I've never read a book by Leonard Susskind: the books I do read reference his writings though.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 6 2007, 12:57 AM)
I suggest purchasing a book on the topic by Leonard Susskind. Better bang-for-the-buck than any pair of movies that you'll watch!
*I've never read a book by Leonard Susskind: the books I do read reference his writings though.
what's leonard susskind's book about?
*I've never read a book by Leonard Susskind: the books I do read reference his writings though.
what's leonard susskind's book about?
String Theory probably, but he's a decent fan of incorporating the Holographic Principal into the maths.
One of the later chapters of Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" goes into detail on the concept, too, but you'd probably need to read earlier chapters to understand where he's going with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
The wiki recommends reading an archived Scientific American, which probably can be done at a library.
One of the later chapters of Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" goes into detail on the concept, too, but you'd probably need to read earlier chapters to understand where he's going with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
The wiki recommends reading an archived Scientific American, which probably can be done at a library.
Soultechs, if we play with the idea of our universe being an analogue to a black hole as you point ut, then it would encircle us, we would be at the inside of that event horizon. how would that express itself?
Another concept worth considering is that this universe is *inside* a black hole. Think of the similarities of the Hubble Constant and what space does as it passes a black hole's event horizon. If we were in a Star Trek-style spaceship capable of warp speeds, the closer we got to the "edge" of the universe, the faster we'd have to be going to catch up.
Maybe gravity is just space getting compressed onto us from all directions.
Maybe gravity is just space getting compressed onto us from all directions.
That's exactly what I was thinking as read the article: that there was possibly no real outflow from a center as if it was pushed or propelled, but rather perhaps the black hole itself expanded, *pulling* it's own core out with it, but the core material in a far smaller region of occupation than the edge of the continuing expansion. Now whether we can find an opportunity for a black hole to behave like this is another story. But it's just an idea.
QUOTE
That's exactly what I was thinking as read the article: that there was possibly no real outflow from a center as if it was pushed or propelled, but rather perhaps the black hole itself expanded, *pulling* it's own core out with it, but the core material in a far smaller region of occupation than the edge of the continuing expansion. Now whether we can find an opportunity for a black hole to behave like this is another story. But it's just an idea.
The key concept is to recognize what a black hole would look like from the inside.
I'm thinking it'd look a lot like our universe.
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.