I really dont agree to this...but heh I got no physics to proof my beliefs/theories. I do think that black holes are links to back in time when universe formed, the universe formed precisely because of the action of black holes a cycle of a sort. But once again it is a theory just like all of yours are theories as well.
black holes
- Thread starter fusion4577
- Start date
What about thoughts, could they be sent back in time? When I was 9 years old I dreamt about a day I actually lived and carried out when I was 22 years old. Which to me means that my thoughts were sent back in time 13 years.
It's nice, but we can propose the opposite with the same relevancy.
Yes, why not seeing as it's possible that thoughts are as stilll yet scientifically unknown about, I like the idea that they can move though black holes. It's the end note that is important!
Thought's moving through a black hole... That's certainly taking it as far as one might assume.
Tunneling however, is when a ''thing'' moves through a certain barrier in space and time. It tunnels through a curve, and ends up moving faster-than-light. Such event's for thoughts alone could hold essential factors for psychic abillities.
Tunneling however, is when a ''thing'' moves through a certain barrier in space and time. It tunnels through a curve, and ends up moving faster-than-light. Such event's for thoughts alone could hold essential factors for psychic abillities.
Could Hendricks vitual particles that point to vacuum energy be an indication that we are somehow in a black hole or the dynamics of our universe somehow point to it being smaller than it actually (in the multiverse)? How or why else would two metal plates gradually contract?
I don;t know what Hendrick's particles are, but the rest of what you say is probably not right. The universe has ah horizon---that is, it is impossible for me to send a signal from anywhere inside the universe and have it reach an observer outside the universe. Even though it is not clear what this means, (at least to me---what does ``outside the universe'' mean?), I think it is right. Either way, the universe can't be a black hole because there is no singularity. The fact that the universe HAS an horizon is not obvious---in the very early universe, I believe that there were some signals that DID propogate across the horizon. This was before inflation. During inflation, the universe expanded so quickly that it ``caught up'' with those signals and sort of consumed them again. These are signals which we expect to see if we can ever measure gravitational radiation (gravity waves) accurately enough.
So thinking of the universe as a black hole has SOME merit, but not much. Living in this universe is a bit like being inside a black hole, as we can never leave. But there are too many qualitative differences to cary this conjecture very far.
It's the concept of the anti-de-Sitter space. By some theories the Universe is formed by interior of black hole sitting inside of some other, larger Universe (1) or "dark brane". Then the higher-dimensional space outside of such black hole (sometimes called "bulk" in brane cosmology) is what the "outside the universe'' means.
From CFT/AdS correspondence (or the AdS/QCD in more constrained view) follows, the outside of Universe is behaving like inside of it, but in reciprocal way. The smaller the Universe is, the more it appears like quantum wave of elementary particle from outside perspective. It means for example, the foamy streaks of dark matter are corresponding the quantum foam forming the vacuum on the opposite side of the Universe branes - and vice versa.
The above concept is infinitelly recursive in fact (at least I don't see any limitation for it) - so that every universe can contain a number of daughter universes inside it (i.e. black holes with one or more daughter singularaties) inside of it. If you have no end of such recursion pre-defined, then every black hole can be considered as an infinite singularity from the outside perspective. Such model even doesn't change/violate the classical definition of black hole too much - it just says, the black hole can contain more than single singularity inside it.
Last edited:
You can certainly continue the current models that we have into higher dimensions.
I guess that the point I was making was that the standard cosmology doesn't really admit this picture. If you want to understand the universe in terms of three spatial dimensions embedded into some background space-time, the analogies of course change.
I'm not sure, what the "standard cosmology" should mean. Approximatelly one half of cosmologists are believing in inflationary hypothesis, approximatelly one third is believing in expyrotic model by my estimations. The least common denominator is supposedly BigBang event and the birth of Universe in "singularity". But such singularity doesn't mean the pin-point Universe from high dimensional perspective, which nobody is able to verify. The singularity means the Universe size from the perspective of Planck length distance scale - i.e. single graviton wave (which is illustrated by green color on the animated scheme bellow). Such wave gradually expands and the number of wave peaks increases - so that the observer formed by such wave will obtain an illusion of fast inflation of the space. The right animation is illustrating, how the expansion of brane surface would appear from the surface cosmologist's perspective.
We can consider the classical "expanding balloon example", where the observer is living on the surface of balloon (mem)brane. Such brane can condense as a surface of droplet from the outer environment. A. Linde, the author of inflationary hypothesis is talking about phase transition of so called "false vacuum", i.e. hypothetical former generation of Universe. We can see, from the perspective of creatures, living at the surface of such membrane the Universe really expands from minute size. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the outer observer in higher dimensions (which cannot be verified, of course), the size of Universe remains the same all the time, or it even collapses - while just a density of brane is changing. Note, that such model fills both the initial singularity concept (as required by BigBang model), both the brane concept (as required by ekpyrotic cosmology), both the inflationary model (A. Linde), both the concept of phase transition of classical matter at the same time. At the very beginning of Universe condensation, every droplet is formed by single surface wave, because the difference between both phases remains minute. In fact, it doesn't differ from classical physics by any way - but in space-time scale.
Last edited:
Just a wee voice wanting to say something
I read this and am so leaning towards a multiverse theory where the size of the organism we are living in is questionable and might not even be visable from a higher dimension. I've been trying to get my head around this for so long, especially the question of size relative to expansion and if it actually remains constant or just moves relative to us and our expansion rate.At this moment it's just a compilation of existing theories. Believe it or not, all concepts in the above post were bespoken in many publications and articles many times before - you just don't know about it. I collected them and added the animations for your viewing pleasure (and maybe streamlining of understanding of all above concepts by the single model).
The understanding of contemporary physics is facing many problems, following from informational singularity. Not just the increasing number of less and less relevant articles, the increased complexity of more and more formal models is the problem here. Nearly everybody, who is working on this subject is introducing his own denominations for the old concepts. The "space-time", "density gradient", "phase interface" "manifold", "brane" are the concepts of the very similar meaning here. By such way, the contemporary physics appears a much more complex and broad science, then it really is. From my perspective it's just a condensed state physics on different dimensional scales - no less, no more.
But what will happen, if we'll try to unify and simplify all these concepts? Will all these poor physicists remain very happy about it? Not at all, every single person in physics will start to defeat obstinately his/hers personal view of reality and the corresponding denominations introduced by him or his research group. This is why, I'm adhering on the principles of scientific priority. I.e. no "quintessence", "fluidum", "dark-energy", "false vacuum", "Higgs lattice", "reference frame of Universe expansion", if the "Aether" denomination was here at first. We will need to crush all the redundant concepts into smallest possible number of the relevant ones. It will be painful process, but necessary for keeping the effectiveness of physical research.
Because the physics is the island of communism in the society which doesn't care about its effectiveness very much, the second scenario appears a much more probable : the volume of informational ballast will increase up to point, virtually nobody will be able to comprehend whole theoretical physics and the less important concepts will simply remain forgotten. After all, who remembers the emitter-absorber theory, transactional interpretation, the geometrodynamics and other "top ten" of the 50's in physics? They had died together with their promoters in quiet. My personal feeling is, the same destiny will follow even the string and LQG theories, while the Heim's theory will be renewed (it's formal effectiveness is incomparable to the former ones). But this is a generational problem, not the conceptual one.
Last edited:
My approach is based on synthesis, i.e. compositing of high level theories from the simpler ones. While the proof of simpler theories isn't my problem here. For example, we can consider the unification of inflationary and expyrotic cosmology. The understanding of their authors is, these theories are mutually exclusive from the obvious competitive reasons. But for me these theories are just concepts, which is necessary to connect together by the simplest and most straightforward way, as possible. As a clue we can consider, both theories are dual, they describing the same process from the different perspective.
So, what we know is, the inflation is sort of phase transition. As an example of phase transition can serve the condensation of supercritical vapor, during which the foamy density fluctuations occurs. At second, the expyrotic cosmology suggests, the Universe has occurred as a result of brane collisions. As the brane we can consider the density fluctuations of false vacuum, i.e. the environment of the previous Universe generation. And we told already, as the resulting universes can be considered the black holes sitting inside of parent universe. The resulting black hole structure appears somewhat like this one:
Now you have all necessary informations to propose the relevant reconciliation of inflationary and brane cosmology for yourself. Go ahead - the unification of existing theories is supposed to be easy and fun! Remember - this is just a public anonymous forum, no risk of carrier lost exists here - you can only win.
Last edited:
If you're interested about branes, inflation, expyrotic cosmology, false vacuum and other concepts, u can find many links and formulas on the web. I didn't invented, nor proved these concepts. If you're not interested about it, then such materials would have no meaning for you anyway.
I want to use based on what functions and what reasoning was behind the making of those animations. Thats all I am asking.