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

A hidden universe could exist inside every black hole, a Polish cosmologist has claimed.
By Amy Willis
Published: 4:25PM BST 02 Aug 2010

hidden universe could exist inside every black hole, a Polish cosmologist has claimed. Photo: PA


Using an adaptation of Einstein's general theory of relativity, Nikodem Poplawski, of Indiana University, Bloomington, analysed the theoretical motion of particles entering a black hole.

He concluded that it was possible for a whole new universe to exist inside every black hole, which could mean that our own universe could be inside a black hole as well.

"Maybe the huge black holes at the centre of the Milky Way and other galaxies are bridges to different universes," he told New Scientist.
Explaining his theory in the journal Physics Letters B, he said he used the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama (ECKS) theory of gravity, in his analysis to account for the angular momentum of particles in a black hole. Doing this it made it possible to calculate a quality of space-time called torsion, a property believed to repel gravity.
He says instead of matter reaching infinite density in a black hole called "singularities" in Einstein's theory of relativity - the behaviour of the space-time acts more like a spring being compressed with matter rebounding and expanding continuously.
Dr Poplawski explains that this "bounce-back" effect is caused by the torsion of space-time having a repulsive force against the gargantuan strength of gravity in a black hole.
Dr Poplawski also claims that this recoiling effect could be what has led to our expanding universe that we observe today and could explain why our universe is flat, homogeneous and isotropic without needing cosmic inflation.
It is hard to see how we could test whether or not Dr Poplawski's theory is correct; the force of gravity in black holes is such that nothing can escape, so no information about what is going on inside one can ever reach us.
However, according to Dr Poplawski, if we were living in a spinning black hole then the spin would transfer to the space-time inside, meaning the universe would have a preferred direction - something we would be able to measure. Such a preferred direction could be related to the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter in the universe and could explain the oscillation of neutrinos.

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

Absolute nonsense these guys just make it up as they go along, anything to avoid getting a real job.

^But at the same time time you can't disprove what he claims.

^
But can he prove it? it's tittle tattle, it's all about his next grant.

Originally Posted by jojo333

Absolute nonsense these guys just make it up as they go along, anything to avoid getting a real job.

Then before Galilao [spell check] they believed the sun moved around the Earth.

That's the whole point with science, people have to think outside the box for progress to be made and what at first sounds outlandish sometimes is proven to be true in years to come, now i have no idea if what this guy claims could be true or not but i don't see why there isn't a possibility it could be.

So could our Universe be existing inside a black hole??

How will we Know??

Will the bars be closed on Buddha days there?

Another unprovable theory says it's all in your mind/perception, a dream.
Dream on..... hope it's a good one.

Originally Posted by Bangyai

Dr Poplawski explains

could be

could explain

Dr Poplawski also claims

could be

could explain

However, according to Dr Poplawski

could be

could explain

Dr Popwotsit's not too concerned about evidence, is he?

Thats correct....progress is made by thinking outside the box. Theories are there for debate and analysis - to prove or disprove..some of us have been living in a black hole for years

I like the idea that dark matter is somehow tied to the expansion of the universe. The black hole theory is interesting.

Originally Posted by phomsanuk

Another unprovable theory says it's all in your mind/perception, a dream.
Dream on..... hope it's a good one.

Nice post.
Reminds me of the lyrical.
"They are not long, the days of wine and roses.
Out of a dream our paths emerge for a while then close again within a dream."

Originally Posted by Humbert

I like the idea that ''dark matter'' is somehow tied to the expansion of the universe. The ''black hole'' theory is interesting.

don't know...but marrying one can impact your life style...

Originally Posted by baby maker

Originally Posted by Humbert

I like the idea that ''dark matter'' is somehow tied to the expansion of the universe. The ''black hole'' theory is interesting.

don't know...but marrying one can impact your life style...

How did you know that my wife is from Surin?

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've always thought the big bang theory (the theory, not the show, I love the show) was dumb. So yeah there was a big huge BANG, and then everything exploded? Seems like the first hare-brained explanation to come along once you observe that the universe is expanding.

Well here's an alternate new theory. It also has its little problems, but I believe this will give an impulse to, yes, think outside the box, and produce some new ideas.

Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

Quoted for convenience:

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end.

As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling.

That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity.

Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant.

So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.

It's easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists.

That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu's universe.

That's in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work.

The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate.

But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle.

That paints Shu's ideas in a slightly different perspective. There's no need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work.

That's not to say Shu's theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang.

How it might arise in Shu's cosmology isn't yet clear but I imagine he's working on it.

Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time.

Rightly or wrongly, that's a trade off that many will find hard. Let's hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned debate
-----------------

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”

Not the same at all. Dating techniques have been developed and scientifically accepted as relatively accurate. These theories however, are just that,-- theories with no scientific validity.

Compare these multitude of unproven theories about origins of the universe to something like religions and I would agree with you, but not fossil dating techniques.

^

"Dating techniques have been developed and scientifically accepted as relatively accurate"

and they are accepted by the same group of scientists, I mean they are hardly going to disagree

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.

Originally Posted by jojo333

^

"Dating techniques have been developed and scientifically accepted as relatively accurate"

and they are accepted by the same group of scientists, I mean they are hardly going to disagree

Nope. Accepted by virtually all groups of scientists. Though there is still some minor disagreement among some as to the accuracy of some techniques. These days they tend to give approximate dates for fossils as everyone knows its not perfect. Of course the Creationists believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing could be older than that. So they are out to shit-can every bit of scientific data they can.

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”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

Same as the religious believers then.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by jojo333

^

"Dating techniques have been developed and scientifically accepted as relatively accurate"

and they are accepted by the same group of scientists, I mean they are hardly going to disagree

Nope. Accepted by virtually all groups of scientists. Though there is still some minor disagreement among some as to the accuracy of some techniques. These days they tend to give approximate dates for fossils as everyone knows its not perfect. Of course the Creationists believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing could be older than that. So they are out to shit-can every bit of scientific data they can.

Yes I am sure the non-profit science community will all agree; after all they are all in the same boat.

I just don’t see the relevance of whether or not a fossil is 35½million years old.

http://videosift.com/video/Carbon-Dating-Doesn-t-Work-debunk


Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work, unless you understand it. Here's the explanation that even a 5th-grader can understand.

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