Black Holes Merging and Multiverse

Could you make a 3-D drawing please, or 4-D, if you can manage it ?? tnks

Are you saying we might be living in a Black Hole ??

Hi AH. As a matter of fact, I agree with you. However, there are some other possibilities:

According to this model, it is supposed that a BH leads to (and, moreover, "creates") another universe. A "wormhole" doesn't connect two distant points of our universe, but, actually, it connects one point of our (mother) universe with another point of another (baby) universe, like a "umbilical cord". In this way, our universe may have many BHs (each one leading to another universe) but just one White Hole (WH). This WH is the "umbilical cord" with another (grandmother) universe (from which our universe has derived). That's why we can observe a lot of BHs but no WHs. Probably, there is just one WH somewhere out there. And, probably, this WH is far far away from us, so that's why it's not observable.

As I wrote in my intial post, it is supoosed (according to this theory) that -at the exact moment that a singularity of a BH is created- this singularity produces a vast amount of energy (and mass), hence creating a whole new universe. This energy has nothing to do with the mass of the original star that has been colapsed. All this energy, essentially, comes out of nothing. (I suppose that this singularity is a kind of "trigger" which produces all this huge amount of energy.) Beyond that, the WH remains, "spitting" energy (i.e. what comes into the BH of the mother-universe, comes out from the WH of the baby-universe).

I think that, if it is so, there must be a kind of "central point" for the expansion of our universe. A kind of "privileged point". And this point is this solitary WH (where our universe has been created).

I like your thoughts AH. I had read once just a few things about the Inflaton field and I think that it deserves some more attention :-)

Let me see if I have understood well: Let's suppose that we have an (hypothetical) enormus black hole of 5*10²¹ solar masses. As all this mass is "squeezed" inside its singularity (i.e. in a tiny space -e.g. 10^-24m-) it is probable that this will 'trigger' the inflaton field creating a whole new universe. Am I right?

You said: "Maybe a black hole is not the best source for this puzzle..." I cannot think of any other physical procedure -that could "squeeze" such a big mass inside such a tiny space- other than a Black Hole.

Let's stay in the "Inflaton scenario": Let's suppose that the mass of the BH is "sqeezed" inside a tiny space much much less than 10^-24m. After all, the singularity itself is an exotic entity with unknown properties. And it is supposed that its size is zero (or extremely close to zero). I have the sense that -in this case- there is no need for such an enormus mass -like 5*10²¹ solar masses- in order to 'trigger' the Inflaton field. I suppose that the mass of a big BH -e.g. some million solar masses- ("squeezed" practically in a point) should be sufficient to 'trigger' the procedure of the creation of a new universe. What do you think about that?

I, also, liked your image depicting a baby-universe that is detached from the mother-universe. There is no need for "wormholes" and no WHs exist (not even one). And I think that this scenario solves the problem of the merging of two BHs: We don't have to worry about what happens to the related baby-universes, as they are already detached from the BHs. And the "Multiverse hypothesis" could be valid too... Hmm... I really like that... :-)

Just a question about your idea of a BU 'pinching-off' from its progenitor: how do you explain the discontinuity seen in the rightmost pic? Zero radius does not imply discontinuity AFAIK. The radius may be zero (unlikely, however, given that a zero radius violates HUP to a considerable degree) but the continuity of the manifold has no dependence on curvature.

Your thoughts?

I think the detachment comes about due the inherent instability of the tether (wormhole).

My illustration is a crude abstraction of the process. A wormhole, theoretically, can not become stable unless some form of exotic matter is used. What that is, is just not understood.

This is clearly a "Merging and Multiverse" conspiracy.

I think it's 4 D.

1. Did it really happen?

2. Did it happen the first time?

3. Did it happen yet?

4. Did it happen again?

Oups... When I wrote "warmhole" I actually meant "wormhole"... Sorry... ...

Hi G.K., interesting thread. I remember back in the 70' there was an article in the New Scientist asking for papers concerning the black holes' presence as ways, or corridors to other universes. There even may have been a scholarship offered for this task, but I'm not that clear on the memory. The astronomers state that we are not alone-who knows, we may find ourselves with some Klingons facing us! Cling on to it!

And all the best for your beautiful country!

I find the leaking of matter to create another universe somewhat problematic. That would mean our universe is indeed in eternal expansion mode and will never collapse again to create another big bang. Our fate is now known and we will just keep expanding till we cool. I am not sure if the astrophysicists are now agreeing that the universe is expanding and loosing mass (gravity) that can bring about another contraction. My understanding is the total mass is still unaccounted in our universe. Although I believe that eternal expansion is becoming the consensus but not conceded. If we were constantly loosing mass on one end (BH) and gaining it back through some white hole, it raises questions as to where the mass is being exchanged. I and many others would have trouble getting around the idea of spawning another universe without some understanding of the mass. The other question, where is the white hole? If there is only one how is mass distributed? Does it mean the black hole at the center of our Milkyway galaxy is currently spawning another universe with just the mass of our galaxy? Your model creates many more questions than answers.

The conservation of energy is still obeyed. So the net energy/mass of the universe is still the same.

It's just the bull-$hit that keeps piling up.

Yes I agree, just keep your hip waders on. The distribution of the mass through a white hole would create dense mass areas with high gravity. I am sure such an anomaly would have been noticed long ago.

Hi G.K.,

I just found this document by John Gribbin called Inflation for Beginners. In it he says:

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end. A variation on this theme suggests that the "budding" process takes place through black holes, and that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity it "bounces" out into another set of spacetime dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe -- this is called the baby universe scenario. ...the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.

-S

Thanks for your reply Jorrie. Once again, you gave me food for thought... :-)

Hi Jorrie,

You wrote:

"

• Many cosmologists today believe that we live in a timeless multiverse - a universe where ours is just one of an ensemble of universes, and where time does not exist;

• The timeless multiverse, however, presents a lot of problems. Our laws of physics are no longer determinable from experiment and it is unclear what the connection is between fundamental and effective laws;

• Furthermore, theories that do not posit time to be a fundamental property fail to reproduce the space-time that we are familiar with;

"

These are pretty significant drawbacks to be sure. One naturally wonders: "What is it about these 'timeless multiverse' theories that makes them so attractive? So much so as to gain general acceptance in spite of their obvious disadvantages and (perhaps especially so) given that there are workable alternatives that do reproduce spacetime as we know it? What's the attraction*?

Your thoughts?

-e

-----

* The subject of what motivates belief probably deserves a thread or two of its own.

"So much so as to gain general acceptance in spite of their obvious disadvantages..."

I'm not sure of general acceptance, just that 'many' like it more than the 'old' theory. Maybe it is the youthfulness of the present generation of cosmologists. It is surely new and may be more exiting to them.

Like president Obama (I think) said on the new mission goals of NASA: young people want to venture beyond the Moon, because their grandparents have already done that part...

Another reason may be that it pushes the "what came before?" question quite far out of 'sight'? The 'colliding brane' model does that quite effectively. And besides, that's mainstream research.

-J

Hi George,

A further comment on your OP: "Now what about the "Baby-Universes"? Do they merge too? Or there are two "wormholes" inside the final BH, each one leading to a separate universe? (And why they should remain separated? They are both located in the centre of the BH. The simpler hypothesis is that they should be merged too.) Both these cases seem to be very "strange". Could this be an argument about the fallacy of the ?"

This scenario does not really make sense to me, so I would not classify it as an argument against the "Multiverse Theory". If two of our own BHs merge, they should become one and spawn one "Baby-Universe". If two or more of our BHs spawn "Baby-Universes", one would expect them to be created in different dimension-systems, not communicating with each other - at least that is the common wisdom.

"Very strange", as you said, but then who knows if what we expect is correct? With little or no chance of ever observing such cases, we may never know...

Hi Jorrie. I am afraid that you didn't understand my initial question.

You said: "If two of our own BHs merge, they should become one and spawn one "Baby-Universe"..." I don't think so. A baby-universe isn't created after the merging of two BHs. It is created at the exact moment of the creation of a single BH due to its singularity. Hence these BHs have already created their own universes before their merging. (And -as you mentioned- of course these universes are created in different dimension-systems not communicating with each other.)

So (it is supposed that) in the centre of a BH there is a wormhole (instead of just a singularity). This wormhole leads to another -baby- universe. Now, suppose that we have two such BHs (each one leading to its own unverse through a wormhole) spinning around each other untill they finally merge. As the result of this merging is just one (and bigger) BH. So, the question that arises is simple: what happened to these two baby-universes?...

I suppose that these two baby-universes remains separated (after all, the merging of these universes doesn't make sense). So, there should be two separated wormholes, both originating from the center of the final BH and leading to each of these baby-universes. But I think that this, also, doesn't make a lot of sense (after all, why these wormoholes should be separated instead of being merged too?)

As Anonymus Hero proposed, there is the possibility that the baby-universes are detached from the BHs (which created them) and their mother-universe, right after their creation. If it is so there is no need for wormholes, WHs or whatever. The two BHs can be merged without any concern about their baby-universes.

Hi George, OK, I see what you meant.

My position is that should such a scenario with two wormholes from one (merged) BH arise, the two wormholes will persist, as will the two baby universes, not influencing each other.

Personally, I do not quite buy into the idea of wormholes creating baby universes, because wormholes are theoretically unstable things. One can obviously speculate on what could happen before a wormhole collapses. Anything is possible, I suppose, but for me it is too far removed from observability.

-J

"Personally, I do not quite buy into the idea of wormholes creating baby universes, because wormholes are theoretically unstable things..." I know that wormholes are unstable (that's why I doubt about their existence in nature.) However, just the singularity of a BH (or an "instant wormhole" that is collapsed at once) may be sufficient to spawn a new universe without the need of a persistent wormhole (i.e. a baby-universe is detached -and permanent separated- from its mother-universe right after its creation.)

The more annoying thing is that (probably) will never be able to observe what is really happening inside a BH. And even if we were able to observe a naked singularity [if such singularities (i.e. without an event horizon) exist] we could never know if this singularity had ever created a new universe (as this new universe is located dimensionally "beyond" our universe).

To those, who obviously believe in the BH entity, I recommend taking a step back and consider the following:

Stephen Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves, at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that:

• "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution. Schwarzschild's actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity 'r' appearing in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.

• Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.

• It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

• The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.

• The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton's theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.

• No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.

• General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

• Einstein's gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein's gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein's gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.

• Einstein's field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.

In an audience of theoretical physicists there was stunned silence-and not a single question.

The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole: "Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies."

A final official word on black holes from the Astronomer Royal who follows an unenviable tradition of holders of that office being completely wrong and retarding progress:

"Black holes, the most remarkable consequences of Einstein's theory, are not just theoretical constructs. There are huge numbers of them in our Galaxy and in every other galaxy, each being the remnant of a star and weighing several times as much as the Sun. There are much larger ones, too, in the centers of galaxies. Near our own galactic center, stars are orbiting ten times faster than their normal speeds within a galaxy." -Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (2001).

What a strange post. First you give an opinion that BHs do not exist and then an opinion that they do. If you were to listen to a lecture by a nut, would you have any questions? I'm not going to ask you if you believe in BHs.

Oh, no, not the electric (plasma) universe, again!

How is it that so many otherwise qualified people (Hawking, Einstein, Davies, Kerr, many others) have thus far failed where Crothers has succeeded, succeeded in appreciating r as a measure of Gaussian curvature and not as a radius as everyone else has supposed? This rather trivial concept somehow managed to completely escape the attention of these otherwise reputable and highly accomplished scientists? All the intervening years of intense peer review has to date utterly failed to catch this glaring oversight? If Schwartzchild had dubbed it s and Sc instead, would that have helped clear the air and avoided all this misunderstanding? And why does Crothers insist that simply because Einstein's GTR equations are non-linear (and correctly states that superposition does not apply therefore, to his credit) that BHs cannot even approach each other? Outside of the (ahem.. non-existent) event horizon BHs behave somehow differently than, say, neutron stars or white dwarfs? That binary systems of BHs and other objects (including other BHs) cannot exist? Oh please.

His diatribe isn't helping matters.

Crothers is cranky AFAIK.

Must say, I have not read his papers, because I have wasted far too much valuable time reading cranky papers in the past.

If you can convince me his has some merit, maybe...

-J

Fat chance!

What has always puzzled me is that the Universe didn't just collapse on itself during the (relatively) lengthy period before the second symmetry breaking started all that inflation business. There was ample opportunity and everything was gravitationally within reach, speed-of-light-wise.

Several years ago I asked Weinberg's assistant (S.W. was out-of-town as usual) why, if gravity was dominant during this time (the other three fundamental forces having not yet split up), didn't we have an immediate Big Crunch?

"We don't know" came his reply.

"Why don't you say so in your publications?"

"It's embarrassing!"

What do suppose were the properties of the superforce-sans-gravity prior to the second symmetry breaking? Evidently something was preventing total collapse. Remember, inflation had not yet begun.

"Remember, inflation had not yet begun."

True, but the negative pressure of a 'super-lambda' (that drove inflation, maybe) might have already been there. That negative pressure can cause an unstable equilibrium for a short time, but then it will either collapse or expand exponentially. This is similar to Einstein's original 'static cosmic model', with lambda keeping it from collapsing. It's not too difficult to show that his 'static' universe could not have been stable - it will either start expanding or collapsing rather quickly...

There are probably issues with this explanation at the quantum level that I do not understand, hence the "embarrassment" of the establishment (at least at the time you referred to).

What is also not known: if it was a 'super-lambda' that drove inflation, what caused it to reduce in size to the very tiny value of today? Does the inflaton field cast any light on this?

-J

Qualified, reputable and highly accomplished does not make someone right. Your belief system seems to be based on mathematical proof, your 'high priests' have learned to replace observation with mental imagery. They will never show us DM (not found), DE, BB, or a NS or BH.

I am proud to follow a few noble mavericks who dared to use laboratory experiments, simple computer simulations and direct observation to form their impression of the universe. As one such engineer, Hannes Alfven says, 99.99% of the OBSERVABLE universe is plasma. So if we know how plasma behaves and can scale its configurations to any size, why do we have to create invisible entities to fill all the space in between?

The Standard Model has failed to describe one universe, why invent more?

Are you Crothers, perchance?

You may be on to something because Crothers doesn't seem to get any traction anywhere else in the scientific community.

The same seems to go for the theories (i.e., plasma universe, which has been discussed ad nausium here), which have exactly, are you ready for this, zero credible peer reviewed scholarly publications.

While it is possible that all of the mainstream scientists are wrong on the subject of the plasma universe it is not very probable.

There, I think I have covered everything there is to say on the subject and we can now move on.