Thread: A universe could exist 'inside every black hole,' claims scientist

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

So.....let me get this straight. Our universe could be in a black hole, yet, we see black holes in our own universe.....lots of them.
Therefore there are universes in our own universe, yet we could be in someone elses.
Ergo, sounds like bullshit.

Well, the big bang and the singularity are not so easy to swallow come to that.

Theoretical physicists are so full of shit, they probably have "theory" on what
a black hole tastes like if you lick it. Notice how String Theory is starting to
go out of fashion, they just make it up as they go along.

Originally Posted by jojo333

"There's no f**king carbon in it!"

What a ...... (fill in appropriate word)

You are really not doing yourself any favours here jojo. Do you know what carbon dating is?

Originally Posted by Mordechai

Theoretical physicists are so full of shit, they probably have "theory" on what
a black hole tastes like if you lick it. Notice how String Theory is starting to
go out of fashion, they just make it up as they go along.

The Higgs Boson is nothing but a theory.

Originally Posted by Bangyai

A universe could exist 'inside every black hole,' claims scientist

why not ?

Just for those that actually *are* interested in the science, as opposed to those too thick to even comprehend it:

This theory has recently become one of the biggest contenders for the "Theory of Everything"; it holds more evidence than "String Theory" and fills the "gaps" in the "Big Bang Theory". The Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama Theory of Gravity could be the explanation to our universe's beginning.

The standard derivation of Einstein-created General Relativity has answered most of universe's biggest mysteries but there is a flaw. As more developments in Quantum Physics are revealed, General Relativity's Theory of Gravity needs an "update". The standard Theory of Gravity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. The Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity does.

This theory predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. Torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.

Astrophysicists have long known that our universe is so big that it could not have reached its current size given the rate of expansion we see now. Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the period known as known as inflation.

This theory's approach immediately solves the inflation problem, saying that torsion caused this rapid inflation, which means the universe as we see it today can be explained by a single theory of gravity without any additional assumptions about inflation. This makes it possible for universes to be born inside the event horizons of certain kinds of black hole where torsion prevents the formation of a singularity but allows energy density to build up, which leads to the creation of particles on a massive scale via pair production followed by the expansion of the new universe.

So why can't we see these Big Bangs happening in Black Holes?

For an object entering a black hole it experiences time at a normal rate but time appears very different to the outside observer. If an outside observer saw a spacecraft entering the event horizon (let's assume the craft would not disintegrate) it would appear that the spacecraft slows down as it gets closer to the event horizon until it stops completely before entering. To the outside observer time has utterly and completely stopped before the spacecraft has entered the Black Hole but to the spacecraft, it has entered the Event Horizon.

Nikodem Poplawski, co-creator of this theory has said "Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon's formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time." For this reason, he emphasizes, the new universe is a separate branch of space time and evolves accordingly.

This theory could also explain why time seems to flow in only one direction and not backwards.

The theory suggests that our "cosmic arrow" of time, the direction in which time flows, is inherited from its source, the "mother universe", the universe that contains the black hole we might be living in.

How does a black hole make a Big Bang?

This is speculative but famous astronomers like Poplawski himself and Michio Kaku have stated that the math is indicates that black holes can indeed form a Big Bang.

As the following can't either be proven false or true it'll remain theoretical for as long as the human race obeys the laws of physics. The math has shown that matter and energy shouldn't simply "disappear" when it falls past the event horizon. It's speculated that the matter and energy passes through the Black Hole and gets shot out of a "White Hole" on the other side. The Big Bang could be the flipside of a Black Hole.

" If you look at the equation for a black hole and put in the parameters of the universe; the mass of the universe, the size of the universe. Bingo! You find that our universe solves the equations for a black hole! In other words, we could be inside an Event Horizon."

There are billions of black holes in the observable universe and the NASA/ESA satellite SWIFT is discovering at least one black hole every day. Which means there could be an undefined amount of "Daughter Universes". Our place in existence of everything may have just gotten a lot more complex.

Though this seems to be a very logical answer to our existence. Since black holes don't follow the laws of physics and therefore doesn't agree with the physics of our universe, this theory has very few possibilties of being proven correct since it would require someone or something entering a black hole and being able to send back the information proving it right.

The only way this theory can be proven correct is to find a way to detect properties from the mother universe that have been inherited in this one, providing experimental, falsifiable proof of the idea.

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

So.....let me get this straight. Our universe could be in a black hole, yet, we see black holes in our own universe.....lots of them.
Therefore there are universes in our own universe, yet we could be in someone elses.
Ergo, sounds like bullshit.

Actually, about 1972, we used to sit around and discuss this very thing while eating our brownies.

TH

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Just for those that actually *are* interested in the science, as opposed to those too thick to even comprehend it:

What about people like me who are interested in it but at the same time still too thick to comprehend it????

Originally Posted by Moonraker

You are really not doing yourself any favours here jojo. Do you know what carbon dating is?

Had basically the same conversation with a Creationist Christian some time back.
Their objective is to disprove and discredit the scientific dating of fossils in order to give credence to their own theory that God created the universe 6,ooo years ago. One has to at least give them a hearing before brushing them off as raving religious nutters.

The universe exists because, well it just does. Its something we can see and feel and touch. Thats a fact. On the other hand, where it came from and where its going is beyond our current comprehension. We have got some pretty good working models about how it all works, but there are still lots of holes in all the theories from quantum physics to general relativity, despite the fact that they work well enough to enable us to get on with business.

All these advanced theories like "String Theory" and parallel universes, or other universes inside black holes are interesting theories, but just theories without any proof. They are just possibilities. And there must be an infinite number of possibilities out there limited only by the human imagination. Its a good thing that people are thinking about the eternal question and trying to prove their theories. One day one of them might just turn out to be right. They thought Copernicus was a nutter when he figured out the world wasn't the center of the universe. And Einstein opened up a whole new world in science with his out of the square thinking at the time.

So, I have an open mind on these multitude of new theories, but am sceptical until I see some verified and accepted scientific proof they got it right. I am sure they will figure it out one day, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. Pisses me off a bit as I would like to know before I go.

Originally Posted by Panda

One has to at least give them a hearing before brushing them off as raving religious nutters.

This one doesn't. This one has heard it all before and has had enough of the faithful fruitcakes to last a lifetime and beyond. If I never hear another sermon again it'll be too soon.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Moonraker

You are really not doing yourself any favours here jojo. Do you know what carbon dating is?

Had basically the same conversation with a Creationist Christian some time back.
Their objective is to disprove and discredit the scientific dating of fossils in order to give credence to their own theory that God created the universe 6,ooo years ago. One has to at least give them a hearing before brushing them off as raving religious nutters.

I agree that they should be given a hearing as it gives them the opportunity to dig themselves deeper and make themselves look like fookin idiots.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Just for those that actually *are* interested in the science, as opposed to those too thick to even comprehend it:

What about people like me who are interested in it but at the same time still too thick to comprehend it????

I thought the article itself wasn't too difficult to read. It has a Gunning FOG index of 15.57, which is about the same as an article from a decent broadsheet.

The concept of theory seems to be beyond some people, but I guess the Wright Brothers probably had the piss taken out of them at some point or other.

[quote=harrybarracuda;1519898]

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Just for those that actually *are* interested in the science, as opposed to those too thick to even comprehend it:

The concept of theory seems to be beyond some people, but I guess the Wright Brothers probably had the piss taken out of them at some point or other.

Difference is that the Wright Bros project actually flew!

This one is just one of many theories that is a bit of a long shot that might turn out to have some element of fact about it, but no way of knowing that.

Comparing it to an historic accomplishment like the birth of powered flight is going a bit too far at this stage.

Originally Posted by Panda

The universe exists because, well it just does. Its something we can see and feel and touch. Thats a fact. On the other hand, where it came from and where its going is beyond our current comprehension. We have got some pretty good working models about how it all works, but there are still lots of holes in all the theories from quantum physics to general relativity, despite the fact that they work well enough to enable us to get on with business.

All these advanced theories like "String Theory" and parallel universes, or other universes inside black holes are interesting theories, but just theories without any proof. They are just possibilities. And there must be an infinite number of possibilities out there limited only by the human imagination. Its a good thing that people are thinking about the eternal question and trying to prove their theories. One day one of them might just turn out to be right. They thought Copernicus was a nutter when he figured out the world wasn't the center of the universe. And Einstein opened up a whole new world in science with his out of the square thinking at the time.

So, I have an open mind on these multitude of new theories, but am sceptical until I see some verified and accepted scientific proof they got it right. I am sure they will figure it out one day, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. Pisses me off a bit as I would like to know before I go.

The way I see it is that in other areas of science, you come up with a theory
and you can prove it at least empirically through experimentation. Sometimes
you can even prove it mathematically. In theoretical physics on the other hand,
it is very difficult to prove anything, say weather the surface topology of a black
hole is smooth or not. This makes it easy for Theoretical physicists to have a big
wank about a theory that is built under conjecture after conjecture, which cannot
be verified anyways.

I suspect a lot of academic fraud goes on in this area.

[quote=Panda;1519915]

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Just for those that actually *are* interested in the science, as opposed to those too thick to even comprehend it:

The concept of theory seems to be beyond some people, but I guess the Wright Brothers probably had the piss taken out of them at some point or other.

Difference is that the Wright Bros project actually flew!

This one is just one of many theories that is a bit of a long shot that might turn out to have some element of fact about it, but no way of knowing that.

Comparing it to an historic accomplishment like the birth of powered flight is going a bit too far at this stage.

The difference is that the Wright Brothers were able to find a practical solution to prove that their theory was correct.

What seems to be the mental stumbling block for some people is that they believe that if something cannot be proven, it cannot be possible.

It's easy to shoot down anyone if you use this simple argument.

Originally Posted by jojo333

It’s the same when these numbnuts come out with statements like, “Yes this fossil is 35½million years old” and how do we know that? “Because we are telling you, now where is my grant”

I suppose you think the world is only 6,000 years old? And that is based on one book, as compared to centuries of scientific research?

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by jojo333

It’s the same when these numbnuts come out with statements like, “Yes this fossil is 35½million years old” and how do we know that? “Because we are telling you, now where is my grant”

I suppose you think the world is only 6,000 years old? And that is based on one book, as compared to centuries of scientific research?

I have no idea how old the world is and frankly I don’t care.
All I know is we get one shot at life, no dress rehearsal, so I make the best of it. As for religion, I think it’s fine for the people who need a crutch, but I don’t need it or believe in it.

Originally Posted by Panda

One has to at least give them a hearing before brushing them off as raving religious nutters.

Originally Posted by jojo333

Here's the explanation that even a 5th-grader can understand.


why?


"There's no f**king carbon in it!"

dont know much about your own body then, what are we made of then, dirt?

^
Kingwilly you fink too much

The evolution of a theory:

1. You have an outrageous idea
2. Its then checked to see if it explains what we already know, if it does
3. Its used to predict something we don't know, but can measure, if its found
4. The inconsistencies between prediction and measurement are used to refine the theory or propose a new step 1.

And so we go around for ever, getting the science grants and a better understanding of how everything works. You don't think the microwave oven invented its self do you.

Pie in the sky theory is what drives experimental science. This is why we are looking for the higg's boson, gravity waves, inconsistencies in the cosmic microwave background etc because these measurements will tell us which theories are plain bollocks and which ones are the dogs bollocks.

As far as I am aware, the 'our religious book is 100% correct and contains all you should know' brigade have never made these step three predictions which would give their ideas some credibility. But then they demand blind faith; whilst scientists would simply like you to hear them out.

Carbon dating has limitations and assumptions. to date all erroneous carbon dating have been caused by the sample being outside the limitations or the assumptions being broken. I.E carbon dating only works for organism that get their carbon directly or indirectly from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Originally Posted by hazz

The evolution of a theory:
1. You have an outrageous idea
2. Its then checked to see if it explains what we already know, if it does
3. Its used to predict something we don't know, but can measure, if its found
4. The inconsistencies between prediction and measurement are used to refine the theory or propose a new step 1.

Neat.

Have a green.