The Arsehole of The Universe
Offline 
Are We Living Inside a Black Hole?
Ute Krausmore>> You are here: Home / Science / Environment / Are we living inside a black hole?
Are we living inside a black hole?
Scientists trying to explain the universe’s accelerating expansion usually point to dark energy, which seems to be pushing everything apart.
But an Indiana University professor has a new theory, reports New Scientist: We’re inside a black hole that exists in another universe. Specifically, a black hole that rebounded, somewhat like a spring.
Some fairly mind-blowing physics is involved here, but the gist is that Nikodem Poplawski of IU-Bloomington used a modified version of Einstein’s general relativity equation set that takes particle spin into account.
Including this variable makes it possible to calculate torsion, part of the geometry of space-time. It also gets rid of the black hole singularity, a phenomenon that general relativity cannot explain.
In a study published earlier this year, Poplawski said when the density of matter reaches epic proportions, torsion counters gravity. This prevents matter from compressing indefinitely to a singularity of infinite density. Instead, matter rebounds like a spring, and starts expanding again.
In Poplawski’s latest study, his calculations show that space-time inside the black hole expands to about 1.4 times its smallest size in as little as 10-46 seconds — two orders of magnitude faster, for lack of a better word, than the Planck time. This brisk bounce-back could have been what led to the expanding universe that we see today.
But here’s the real kicker: as Poplawski says, we may not be living in our universe at all; we might be living inside a rebounded black hole that exists in a different universe.
We could tell by measuring the preferred direction of our universe. A spinning black hole would have imparted some spin to the space-time inside it, which would violate a law of symmetry that links space and time. This might explain why neutrinos oscillate between their antimatter and regular-matter states.
http://www.popsci.com.au/2010/07/are-we-living-inside-a-black-hole/
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Not that I know doodly squat about cosmology, but this sort of makes sense.
Living inside an arsehole, that would explain a lot of goings on here.
The general consensus is that the big bang was a big expansion rather than a big explosion - a bit like blowing up a balloon. When you think of black hole sucking one universe through into another, it's conceptually possible and that makes the concept a feasible possibility in the mind's eye. It's an interesting idea. Whatever is going on, there is probably a 'reasonable' explanation for it. Still. Black holes have never been studied directly and this stuff is theory, same as all other ideas about black holes. There's even debate about the singularity of space and time that exists inside them and given the impossibility of transmitting data out of a black hole using current means, knowing this for sure isn't possible. It's far more likely than god, though.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
OK. If the universe is in a black hole, how did this black hole show up? As far as we know, black holes are created when gigantic star burns out and collapses into itself. Hell, it shouldn't be a literal black hole. But no star is big enough to create a black hole big enough to create an universe, that's bullshit. So either there's something bad about this theory, or the author is trying to explain in layman terms something he has no words for.
I hope the text above is one big metaphor and that somewhere there's a real version of this theory that gives sense.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
OK Luminon, stellar death is one way that a black hole may form. It is not considered to be the only way. For example, conditions in the early universe were very different from what they are today. With all of the mass of the universe in a much smaller volume, conditions were much closer to what would be needed for a black hole to form. Possibly around the time that the first stars began to come together, some of them just got the relatively small extra push over the limit and formed black holes without undergoing the specific scenario that you have in mind.
Actually, we are reasonably confident that many black holes formed fairly early on. Certainly we know that most galaxies seem to have an enormous black hole at the center. Such black holes as we have been able to calculate the mass of also seem to have a mass that is rather strongly linked to the mass of the host galaxy. This suggests that the manner in which they formed is somehow connected to the formation of the galaxies themselves and not from a stellar death scenario.
Possibly a better question to ask might be “where is this black hole?” Because if it is a real thing, then it must be somewhere. A sensible answer could be that it is located in a universe outside of our own. A universe that is obviously much larger than what we are thinking of as “the” universe.
=
We are talking about a black hole that was formed in a different universe. Who knows what initial conditions that universe has or what its critical constants are? It may have laws of physics completely different from ours. It is easily conceivable that a universe may exist capable of producing black holes large enough to swallow entire universes.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
Signature ? How ?
Well it's pretty close to my box in a box theory so I could go with it.
evo has miles of real, hands-on verifiable proof while black holes are subject to theories, given they can't be studied directly. However, they do have real properties that can be observed and on which theory can be based. Unlike gods.
I agree with your broad point, Ken. Evolution is the only model of life that has actual proof. The label should go the other way - the theory of creation.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I wonder if this may be an explaination for dark energy. If more matter from a higher level universe was falling into our 'black hole', this could explain the continuous increase in net energy.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Yes, I could sort of agree with this theory. The universe as it behaves according to my information really sort of resembles this effect of rebounded black hole. The main difference is, that it's not (only) spatial black hole, but also dimensional. Dimension is here practically meant as a property of matter and energy which it contains. The matter precipitated and concentrated into lowest dimensional state, as if it would be a core of black hole. From there it indeed rebounded, reaching the state I call dense-material. Not only spatially (flying all around) but also very, very slowly dimensionally, it again grows back into it's original dimensional properties.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Well Luminon, what do you mean by a change in official policy?
Honestly, there is not secret committee which decides what scientific policy will be. That is just so far out there that it begs for ridicule.
Also, Occam's razor does not say what you seem to think it says. It is not that it is impermissible to add anything. If that were the case, then we would still be farming with hand tools. Really what it says is that you should not add anything that is not needed to explain something for which we did not already have a good explanation.
So the universe may be inside a black hole which is part of some other universe. Also, life cam to earth when the gigantic three headed space goat seeded our planet with the basic stuff of life.
BZZZT!
Hold on but what is up with the space goat thing? It is not even relevant to cosmology so it is off topic. That is an example of how Occam's razor works. Now if you want to use the space goat in a topic about abiogenesis, knock your self out. It will not explain how life got started as the goat must have come from somewhere and that is what we need to answer in that topic.
Rather, science is a process or method for looking into stuff that we do not yet have a good explanation for. If you have a reasonable education in science, then you would know that scientists often come up with ideas that end up not working out. Really, it is a large part of what they do. If nobody ever came up with new and interesting ideas, then the limits of our knowledge would be stagnant.
Really, you will not likely find this exact description in a text book but here is one way of looking at science.
First you guess. Don't laugh, that is the most important part. <--That is a direct quote from Richard Feynman BTW.
Really, the deal is that there are things we don't have a good explanation for. If you are suitably educated in the subject at hand, then you would also have a good handle on the data that we do have. At some point though, you do have to make a guess (hopefully an educated one but whatever).
When you think that you have covered all the angles and you now know something that nobody else does, you want to tell the world. This is called publishing. Almost always, the publisher will send out advance copies of your work to other people in the same general field to peer review. Every scientist has been through this process both is submitting their own work and having been asked to look over other scientists work before it actually gets published. Basically, it amounts to handing off the draft paper to other people who have the ability to spot any mistakes that you may have missed on your own and saying “does this look right to you?”
Eventually, the work is accepted for publication and then it is not just a small group of scientists looking over your work but now the whole community gets to look it over. Possibly a few thousand people in any specific area of science. If nobody calls you out, that does not mean that you are right. It could well be a few years before the bad news comes in. Hence the reason why the Nobel committee tends to award prizes for stuff that was done like 10~20 years earlier.
=
Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is often the best. This theory explains the presence of "dark energy" pretty effectively. I'm not familiar with any simpler ones. Maybe some form of Einstein's cosmological constant won't need another universe. However it doesn't lend itself towards a clear mechanism to explain the expansion. A rebound in spacetime that occurs in a black hole seems to. Its still a bit farfetched though but it would be really cool if it was true.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
By the way, wasn't it a fire-breathing three-headed space goat? I think I had read paper on it by professor Adams.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.