We're not in the cat's collar, we're in the kid's marble collection.
Posted on 06/04/2012 1:01:23 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Inside Science Minds presents an ongoing series of guest columnists and personal perspectives presented by scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and others in the science community showcasing some of the most interesting ideas in science today.
(ISM) -- Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.
Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
But these theories leave major questions unresolved. For example: What started the big bang? What caused inflation to end? What is the source of the mysterious dark energy that is apparently causing the universe to speed up its expansion?
The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more. It eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe. And it draws upon two central theories in physics.
Nikodem Poplawski displays a "tornado in a tube". The top bottle symbolizes a black hole, the connected necks represent a wormhole and the lower bottle symbolizes the growing universe on the just-formed other side of the wormhole.The first is general relativity, the modern theory of gravity. It describes the universe at the largest scales. Any event in the universe occurs as a point in space and time, or spacetime. A massive object such as the Sun distorts or "curves" spacetime, like a bowling ball sitting on a canvas. The Sun's gravitational dent alters the motion of Earth and the other planets orbiting it. The sun's pull of the planets appears to us as the force of gravity.
The second is quantum mechanics, which describes the universe at the smallest scales, such as the level of the atom. However, quantum mechanics and general relativity are currently separate theories; physicists have been striving to combine the two successfully into a single theory of "quantum gravity" to adequately describe important phenomena, including the behavior of subatomic particles in black holes.
A 1960s adaptation of general relativity, called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. It not only provides a step towards quantum gravity but also leads to an alternative picture of the universe. This variation of general relativity incorporates an important quantum property known as spin. Particles such as atoms and electrons possess spin, or the internal angular momentum that is analogous to a skater spinning on ice.
In this picture, spins in particles interact with spacetime and endow it with a property called "torsion." To understand torsion, imagine spacetime not as a two-dimensional canvas, but as a flexible, one-dimensional rod. Bending the rod corresponds to curving spacetime, and twisting the rod corresponds to spacetime torsion. If a rod is thin, you can bend it, but it's hard to see if it's twisted or not.
Spacetime torsion would only be significant, let alone noticeable, in the early universe or in black holes. In these extreme environments, spacetime torsion would manifest itself as a repulsive force that counters the attractive gravitational force coming from spacetime curvature. As in the standard version of general relativity, very massive stars end up collapsing into black holes: regions of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape.
Here is how torsion would play out in the beginning moments of our universe. Initially, the gravitational attraction from curved space would overcome torsion's repulsive forces, serving to collapse matter into smaller regions of space. But eventually torsion would become very strong and prevent matter from compressing into a point of infinite density; matter would reach a state of extremely large but finite density. As energy can be converted into mass, the immensely high gravitational energy in this extremely dense state would cause an intense production of particles, greatly increasing the mass inside the black hole.
The increasing numbers of particles with spin would result in higher levels of spacetime torsion. Therepulsive torsion would stop the collapse and would create a "big bounce" like a compressed beach ball that snaps outward. The rapid recoil after such a big bounce could be what has led to our expanding universe. The result of this recoil matches observations of the universe's shape, geometry, and distribution of mass.
In turn, the torsion mechanism suggests an astonishing scenario: every black hole would produce a new, baby universe inside. If that is true, then the first matter in our universe came from somewhere else. So our own universe could be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe. Just as we cannot see what is going on inside black holes in the cosmos, any observers in the parent universe could not see what is going on in ours.
The motion of matter through the black hole's boundary, called an "event horizon," would only happen in one direction, providing a direction of time that we perceive as moving forward. The arrow of time in our universe would therefore be inherited, through torsion, from the parent universe.
Torsion could also explain the observed imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe. Because of torsion, matter would decay into familiar electrons and quarks, and antimatter would decay into "dark matter," a mysterious invisible form of matter that appears to account for a majority of matter in the universe.
Finally, torsion could be the source of "dark energy," a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and increases the rate of expansion of the universe. Geometry with torsion naturally produces a "cosmological constant," a sort of added-on outward force which is the simplest way to explain dark energy. Thus, the observed accelerating expansion of the universe may end up being the strongest evidence for torsion.
Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe. It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity. While resolving some major questions, it raises new ones of its own. For example, what do we know about the parent universe and the black hole inside which our own universe resides? How many layers of parent universes would we have? How can we test that our universe lives in a black hole?
The last question can potentially be investigated: since all stars and thus black holes rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recently reported evidence from surveys of over 15,000 galaxies that in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed", or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed", or rotating counterclockwise. In any case, I believe that including torsion in geometry of spacetime is a right step towards a successful theory of cosmology.
Nikodem Poplawski is a theoretical physicist at Indiana University.
A leap of faith to describe something you don’t even know what is...
Or worse to think you know what isn’t..
No, man. Every universe is a marble in a locket on a cat’s collar.
Didn’t you see Men In Black?
The universe is everything.
How can there be many universes?
There’s nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth again.
Interesting. The problem is that most of the theories put forth in astrophysics are difficult if not impossible to test.
Sounds like government to me.
In real life, there is no such thing as a black hole, there is only the one universe which we observe, gravity does not bind cosmic objects together, and there was never such a thing as a “big bang(TM)”. The desire for multiple universe arises from the evolosers understanding what the odds against evolution are in the one universe we actually have.
If such is the case, how does one account for being able to measure the mass of a black hole? I find Chandrasakahr’s (sp?) view of how black holes are formed more plausible.
...”most of the theories put forth in astrophysics are difficult if not impossible to test.”
Maybe for us...
The problem is that most of the theories put forth in astrophysics are difficult if not impossible to test.
Yes, it’s very convenient.
Wouldn’t each child universe have less matter and energy than its parent universe?
It wouldn’t take too long for the succeeding generation of child universes to get too light-weight for black holes to form.
I give this theory an F.
Unhunh. Ever more complex theories to preen ones ego with.
The universe is everything. How can there be many universes?It's called the multiverse.
Pingity
I'm putting my own theory forward called the Snack Cake Paradox; that every black hole contains a Ring Ding Jr. at the center.
Inflation is basically a concoction to explain away several serious problems with the Big Bang Theory, namely...
1. The Horizon Problem
2. The Flatness Problem
3. The Galaxy Formation Problem
4. The Antimatter Problem
Here is an excellent source which explains in layman terms what these problems are:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5
And here are some things I found some time ago on inflation theory...
Alan Guth [inventor of Inflation theory]: "Those 'little creatures'[cosmic microwave background photons], however, would have to communicate at roughly 100 times the speed of light if they are to achieve their goal of creating a uniform temperature across the visible Universe by 300,000 years after the Big Bang." http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth2.html
As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point."...
"The model in Guth's original paper, published in Physical Review D in 1980, admittedly did not work. Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, who took part in Bardeen's calculation of the density perturbations, says Guth had been brave. "One of the striking things about [Guth's] paper," Turner says, "was that he said: 'Look, guys, the model I am putting forward does not work. I can prove it doesn't work. But I think the basic idea is really important.' "
In fact, Guth's "old" inflation ended too soon, and too messily. A "graceful exit" was needed to make the universe look remotely similar to ours. In 1982 Paul Steinhardt, another co-author of Bardeen's calculation, solved the graceful exit problem together with Andreas Albrecht; Linde also found a solution independently. Their "new" inflation worked by adjusting the shape of the potential function, a sort of mathematical roller-coaster that defines the properties of the inflation.
Most of the mechanisms proposed ever since rely on carefully adjusting the shape of the hypothetical potential function. None, it seems, has been too convincing. "All these models seem so awkward, and so finely tuned," says Mark Wise, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology.
Physicists would like a theory that avoids such gimmicks, one that shows how things ought to be from first principles—or at least with the smallest possible number of assumptions. "Fine tuning" is the opposite.
It was two fine-tuning problems, two such implausible balancing acts, that inflation was supposed to have solved. "You're trying to explain away certain features of the universe that seem fine-tuned—like its homogeneity, or its flatness," says Steinhardt, now at Princeton University, "but you do it by a mechanism that itself requires fine tuning. And that concern, which was there from the beginning, remains now." As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point." "
http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000045
It depends on what the definition of the day for "Universe" is.
And we have here a great example of why I’m a life scientist, and not a physicist. Physics is just plain weird, once you get outside of the human scale (”classical physics”) that we are all familiar with.
It’s probably naive to think this, but if one is thinking about ways to test the hypothesis that the universe is inside a black hole, could one start with the observation that we look out at night and see a black universe? All those stars out there generate a LOT of light—light doesn’t just disappear. But if the universe is inside a black hole, which by definition absorbs light, doesn’t that explain where the light goes?
Any physicists out there are welcome to critique my idea (and tell me where I went horribly astray).
A "theory" isn't technically a theory unless it is capable of being disproven. Super String "theory" doesn't actually qualify as a theory because there is no test that can falsify it. There must be 'something' that if it is shown to be the case disproves it.
well ya know Dad must think he better keep them separated..let each develop in line with the dreams of the inhabitants...like bubbles in an ocean
Right. If we could only find the right balance of matter and anti-matter and channel it into our impulse engines we could go back in time, travel to other, less progressive, universes and uphold the prime directive.
Cut the funding.
I think the motivation behind the “infinite number of universes” theory has as much to do with providing a way to explain the existence of the universe without a need for a Creator as it does for any scientific purpose.
At the heart of the Big Bang theory is the premise that compressed matter reaches critical mass and explodes. OK.
But its an enormous stretch to think that the exact amount of matter required to reach critical mass is equal to the amount of matter in the theorized universe.
If there was a big bang, it is logical to assume that it occurred before the universe had completely collapsed on itself. This might also explain the existing problems with the intitial expansion without the “special faster than light” rules created to explain super fast expansion followed by rapid deceleration, followed by constant acceleration.
It would also then stand to reason the actual universe, far greater in size than the observed universe, is a series of expanding and contracting pockets of matter.
We're not in the cat's collar, we're in the kid's marble collection.
>All those stars out there generate a LOT of light—light doesn’t just disappear.
It doesn’t disappear, but it does have to fill a truly immense volume, so that’s why space is dark. It’s the cubic increase of volume thing. The space between galaxies is far far larger than the galaxies themselves.
The Democrats will tell you: Bush started the big bang; Obama's policies caused inflation to end...
So, microblackholes are little universes only a few parsecs wide?
The universe is in a black hole.
A black hole is always condensing.
Those galaxies that are "farther down" the black hole are moving faster toward the singularity than those "farther up."
Thus every galaxy appears to be accelerating from every other galaxy except for those few nearby galaxies which happen to be on the same geodesic and thus are nearing one another.
(varmintman, glennaro - You are wrong about multiverse concepts denying a Creator. When understood properly, they are pivotal to Him.)
“Wouldn’t each child universe have less matter and energy than its parent universe?”
Technically, no.
If you confine your thinking to a single universe, then the answer is “yes.” Once you break into thinking involving a multiverse, you begin to realize that the universes actually can’t be measured against each other (because they no longer share space) and, therefore, have *no relative size*.
You see, these scientists *almost* have it. I can give an analogy that explains how it works:
Imagine a giant three dimension grid of rubber bands. The rubber bands represent space. Vibration of the bands represent energy. Linear stretching represents gravity. And, distortion/clumping/knotting of the bands represents matter. (Remember, this is an analogy.)
Everything within our universe exists “on the grid,” so to speak, but there is also unbound “space” between the actual strands. Within those empty holes, things are not confined by the rubber band grid. You could shoot a pea through that space and it would travel unrestricted.
Now, interestingly, time is a measure of the relative movement through space. If the pea does not move *on the grid*, it is actually moving without consuming any time. In fact, off the grid, there is no time. There is only eternity - the “super-moment,” if you will. All points in time within the grid exist at once relative to anything outside the grid. (This, by the way, is where God exists - where he is able to observe all things and reach in and pluck the strands of our universe at will... but that’s another conversation altogether.)
Anyway, imagine if you reached into the grid with your hand and began to tangle and ball up the rubber bands. You are forming a black hole in the grid. You continued to smush more and more rubber bands together so that the rubber bands (space) around the ball you were making - the ones that connected the ball to the rest of the grid began to streeeeeeetch. Eventually, as more and more rubber bands were pulled in, the connecting rubber bands (space) have their breaking point and would begin to snap. Since the affect of black holes is largely spherical, the connecting rubber bands would snap almost simultaneously.
OK - now you have a fistful of rubber bands all smushed together in a giant hole within the grid, no longer connected to the grid. This is where things get REALLY interesting. This, my friend, is the moment of the Big Bang.
The ball of rubber bands is no longer contained within it’s previous space. It is no longer defined by the rules it once was forced to obey. It has the opportunity to redefine itself - create a completely new universe where the space, matter, and energy of the previous universe are no longer comparable in any way, shape, or form. It is able to reformat itself without any respect to the size of the previous universe.
Here is what is key to understanding this: you must realize that since the escaped ball and the previous grid no longer share ANY connection, there is no measuring stick you can take from one universe and measure the other. A measuring stick in one, simply would not EXIST in the other. It would have irrelevant parameters. A meter is not a meter, a gram is not a gram, and a second is not a second between the two universes. You *cannot* say one is smaller or bigger than the other because they DON’T EXIST RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER. (They actually only exist relative to the “super-moment.” Again, that’s another story.)
This is a very difficult concept to grasp. It involves putting aside the spatial thinking inherent to the single universe mindset. Once you get there, though, it really twists your noodle. You start to realize that, within eternity, there is no causality. You start to realize that, within eternity, there are infinitely many universes... and *infinitely none*. You start to realize that it is cool, vastly beyond our current ability to understand, and an amazing place for God to exist.
Try as we may we can only touch on an understanding of infinity because we are restricted by linear, temporal thinking. When we enter Heaven, we will truly understand that all finite things of this universe approach zero relative to the eternal. We will truly understand that ALL *measurable* things - including one universe relative to another - essentially become equal relative to the infinite.
Since the universe (time / space) requires a conscious observer to come into existence in any form (part of Quantum Theory that has been experimentally tested and confirmed) it begs the question: Whose consciousness are we talking about? Those multiple universes would require the same and the idea might lend a whole new meaning to the phrase “My Father’s house has many mansions”.
Well, no. It would SEEM that this would be the case, but it is not. You are counting the mass of the universe inside the black hole as part of the parent universe's mass, but that is incorrect. The mass of the universe inside the black hole is no longer part of the parent universe, but more importantly, it is far greater than the mass of the black hole as seen in the parent universe.
From the article: "Initially, the gravitational attraction from curved space would overcome torsion's repulsive forces, serving to collapse matter into smaller regions of space. But eventually torsion would become very strong and prevent matter from compressing into a point of infinite density; matter would reach a state of extremely large but finite density. As energy can be converted into mass, the immensely high gravitational energy in this extremely dense state would cause an intense production of particles, greatly increasing the mass inside the black hole.
The new universe inside the black hole is not identical to the black hole, is unseen and utterly disconnected from the parent universe, and would contain mass approximating that of the parent universe, assuming that the physics of the creation of universes operates consistently over time.
"Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"
Ping for reference
Interesting responses to my question, both of you. Thanks. Very thought provoking.
[ “Not only is it not right, it’s not even wrong!” ]
Kind of like the Dohbama Administration...
1) He not really white or black...
2) Not really American or Chicagoan..
3) Not really smart or dumb...
4) Not really marxist, socialist or maoist...
5) Not really male or female...
6) Not really democrat or republican...
7) But he is a one worlder...
Thank you for taking time to explain your thoughts. G
Turtles all the way down...
Ah. So the light really is there, but it's below our limit of detection (at least, our biological limit). Unless we look directly at a star, that is. Thanks.
There is also the point that space is very, very empty, especially intergalactic space. There’s about nothing to reflect/diffract the light out there. Adding up these facts mean we end up seeing black (absence of light).
�That's the only place that matter is, so if you were to fall into a black hole you wouldn't hit a surface as you would with a normal star.
�Once it's there, it's there.
�As far as we know, nothing would survive going into a black hole.
�People sometimes talk about "wormholes" as portals to other universes, but it is now thought to be very likely that these can't exist.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/blackholes.html
�That's the only place that matter is, so if you were to fall into a black hole you wouldn't hit a surface as you would with a normal star.
�Once it's there, it's there.
�As far as we know, nothing would survive going into a black hole.
�People sometimes talk about "wormholes" as portals to other universes, but it is now thought to be very likely that these can't exist.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/blackholes.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
