Relativity and Cosmology

Hi Jorrie,

Very interesting. Is it your assertion that this universe may have started as a black hole in a larger universe that popped back as a white hole? I take it that with enough matter collapsing into a black hole, a threshold is reached where a bounce back into a white hole occurs. Is that your understanding? Has anybody done a calculation of how much matter it would take? Your opinion is valued here.

Regards,

S

Hi S.

No, my view is more like our universe was preceded by a former universe, perhaps with very different physics than we have today. This means I 'like' the bounce scenario, whatever 'like' may mean here.

I am not a supporter of the spawning of new universes out of black holes. The statement in my web article: "The bounced black hole may have popped out in another universe as a white hole…" was a bit tongue in the cheek.

My reasoning is that a white hole should be continuously spewing out matter and radiation. Since we are not observing white holes, I doubt such a scenario. Further, we observe the lasting effects of black holes, so their energy have not disappeared to some other universe.

There are such published theories, but AFAIK, they are not well supported in the cosmology/relativity community and are surely not supported by any evidence. I believe the conditions for a bounce was only right for the universe as as whole.

Jorrie

I know this is contrary to the known laws of physics, (but all is not yet known), but another scenario, in short form, goes something like this:

matter, as it passes the event horizon of a black hole, is accelerated to and above the speed of light, giving it excape velocity from the black hole. it also is torn apart to its most fundamental level. Also, as the matter exceeds the speed of light it basically is energy and as it is still gaining energy (with increasing velocity) it "replicates" itself, just as the cells of all life do. Thus, creation of energy (matter). it is spewn to the outer reaches of the galaxy in an electromagnetic field, (dark energy, hawking radiation, whatever), only to be slowly drawn back into the center of the galaxy by the magnetic pull of the supermassive black hole in the center, to repeat the process. This would explain the "growth" and even accelerating expansion of the universe.

everything had to come from somewhere.

just my own theory. what do you think? impossible or just impossible to prove.

Hi Guest, a few comments on 'flaws' in your summary:

"... matter, as it passes the event horizon of a black hole, is accelerated to and above the speed of light, giving it escape velocity from the black hole."

Not so. Nothing escape from a black hole. Matter entering it has no way out, at least not in the present universe. Even Hawking radiation, if it exists in the present Universe, can never take any particle/energy through the even horizon from the inside out.

"Also, as the matter exceeds the speed of light it basically is energy and as it is still gaining energy (with increasing velocity) it "replicates" itself, just as the cells of all life do."

Implausible. Where will the energy come from to replicate particles? If, so, so what? All that energy remains locked out of our sight inside the black hole.

"... it is spewn to the outer reaches of the galaxy in an electromagnetic field, (dark energy, hawking radiation, whatever), only to be slowly drawn back into the center of the galaxy by the magnetic pull of the supermassive black hole in the center, to repeat the process."

The magnetic filed does spew out particles, but from outside the black hole's event horizon. What is more, it 'spews' it out so fast that some will even leave the galaxy. It is extremely unlikely that any will return to the same black hole.

"This would explain the "growth" and even accelerating expansion of the universe."

Nice try, but... My recommendation to you is to go and study what physics you can master and then think about these issues again. I found that there is not much profit in dreaming up physical ideas without understanding the basics.

If you do know your physics and said some of the above tongue in the cheek, I apologise. As an engineer, I'm not good at refuting theories - I prefer to show the standard way and leave breaking new ground to the scientists.

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

While deliberating on certain (philosophical) issues, I had a strange thought and decided I would ask your thoughts about it, if you have any.

Many learned folks, including yourself, have commented on various things such as higher dimensions, beginning of our universe, etc.

I recently read an article concerning branes and got to thinking- gets me in trouble in spite of everything- about the whole "reality" of things (probably a wrong choice of words). Anyway, most of the community accepts four dimensions as a description of our "world" with, of course, time being at the top of the heap.

What I'm getting to is the possibility of a dimension that exists all around us that we haven't realized (yet). Since antiquity, we have been searching for what makes us "us", i.e., conscious! Everyone from philosophers to neuroscientists have been trying to figure out this elusive mystery, don't you agree? Perhaps the reason we can't figure it out is because we're trying to see the very thing that allows us to see (conceive) in the first place. That's why AI will never succeed, IMHO.

Just suppose that "conscientiousness" is an overlapping (5^th), or some other dimension, with our own 4 dimensional world. This may very well be the "missing link"? I have no idea if anyone has proposed something like this or not, but, if so, I am not aware of it. Seems to me like a fallacy in this regard (scientific) is that one cannot apply scientific principles to something like conscientiousness (as it applies to- for lack of a better word- conscientiousness). Forgive me, I'm not suggesting circular logic, but I'm not sure how else to put it.

Maybe this is off the wall, and I'm quite certain there's no math to support it, but just give it some thought. I know this is totally out of the realm of scientific enquiry, but I value your thoughts and opinions and would just like to hear what you think about it.

Also, as I'm sure you'll jump on immediately, this gets into the philosophical arena. I realize this, but nonetheless, I'd really like to hear some scientifically based thoughts, if any.

Kind regards,

-John