I'm not a physicist but it's interesting to think about the implications:
1. No singularity at the center of a black hole
2. Universe's expansion rate is not constant because it's blackholes powering it with matter
3. Eventually expansion slows, stops and reverses
And now my own crazy ideas:
1. Maybe the universe is a inside a black hole
2. Maybe the big bang was a result of the birth of another black hole somewhere else, and that the rapid expansion rate of the early universe was due to the a huge amount of matter converted into dark energy by this black hole
The universe is not inside a black hole. Inside black holes the radial coordinate is time like, which is definitely not true in our universe, where the time coordinate is timelike, and the radial coordinate is space like.
Inside of black holes looks nothing like ordinary spacetime. Inside black hole, everything in your future is with decreasing radial coordinate, which means space is shrinking until you hit the singularity where radial coordinate is zero and you have no future.
No, this depends on your choice of coordinate system - has been debunked N times on physics reddit in virtually every thread that it comes up. The EH itself is not a singularity in the observers reference frame as they cross it nor do they particularly notice when they do.
I never said EH is a singularity. I said you could notice you're inside as your timelike coordinate becomes the radial coordinate. That's something you could easily notice if you look around, it would correspond to a shrinking universe, and our universe is expanding.
The "you won't notice crossing the event horizon" troupe is true only in a very local sense. If you move around and observe the geometry around you, you can definitely tell you're inside a black hole.
> Maybe the big bang was a result of the birth of another black hole somewhere else, and that the rapid expansion rate of the early universe was due to the a huge amount of matter converted into dark energy by this black hole
There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them, and that our universe could be underneath countless layers of black holes forming universes that form black holes ad infinitum.
There is a Kurzgestadt video[0] that discusses the theory in more detail. Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
>There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them
Calling it a "theory" is kind of wrong, it's not a "theory" according to the classical definition of the word. The word has been diluted over time to mean any thought anyone has about anything, but it used to mean something that has been proven by observation and empirical evidence. Yes, I'm being pedantic.
>A "classical" definition of a theory refers to a well-established, comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon, based on a body of evidence and often including clearly defined principles or laws, signifying a robust and widely accepted understanding of a subject, as opposed to a mere hypothesis or speculation; essentially, a "theory" in the true scientific sense
>Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
I'm not sure this qualifies as "science". It's more like stoner speculation.
Science is defined as:
>"The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
There is no observation, experimentation, or testing of theories that could ever happen for these notions about black holes and the universe(s).
It could be that the universe is a giant egg laid by a giant chicken, and that is just as plausible as "black holes create universes inside them" as far as we know.
Theories are always in a sense speculative, as they build upon other theories and measurements. And as measurements aren't definitive, but just a standardized way of comparing results, theories are just an abstract framework how we have a shared understanding of the world around us.
Theories usually are just based on other theories and just create a theory from the current available data. The less data you have, the larger the possible space that your theory might lie in.
Hypotheses are usually things that rework theories because we have some new data that showed that our theories were inaccurate/false/invalid and builds a new framework that more accurately models the data and theories that we have.
Take this just with grain of salt, this is just a philosophical view of the meanings of the words as I understand them.
It's not crazy. I'm no physicist, but I understand the math of the Big bang is similar to that of a White hole.
What gets a little mind bending for me is the idea that the physics inside the black hole can differ slightly from the ancestor universe. So black holes will preferentially create descendant universes that prefer to create more black holes.
This is a different multiverse theory than the quantum many worlds theory. The limitation of quantum many worlds is that the physics doesn't change. But in the ancestor black hole many worlds theory it does.
When you put these together, you can get an even larger multiverse, where anything that can happen does happen, but only if the laws of physics allow for black holes. That may mean the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is out there somewhere, so long as those laws of physics allow for black holes. Right? Again not a physicist.
According To Tegmark's reasoning the MCU could be out there, black holes not a prerequisite but
"there are all sizes of infinity, some infinities are bigger than others. The infinity of Real numbers is bigger than the infinity of all positive numbers, and it should be noted that while the infinity of all positive numbers is infinite the number 3 only shows up in it once."
Not even close. There’s an infinite amount of numbers in between 0 and 1. But in an infinite multiverse for each of those numbers, you could never see 2.
Since you like crazy ideas let me add mine to the pile. Black holes are the universe, always has been, always will be. The dust around them is just a sideshow. Our observable universe is just a small short-lived kinetic bubble inside of very highly energetic collision of two dense clusters of black holes that ran into each other at near light speed about 13 bln years ago and "shattered". The only expansion of space that exists is caused by galactic black holes pulling space apart ever since two clusters of them collided mixed and splinters flew in all directions at random speeds. The Hubble law in bulk is caused by simple classical fact that the the faster something was, the further it ran away from us (and everything else) in available fixed time. If the acceleration of expansion is real it's caused by everything getting pulled even more apart by gravity of matter way outside of our observation horizon that's not that neatly isotropic. I've seen a paper where they found oscillations in expansion rate of universe at timescales of billions of years. If that checks out with new data then probably some larger fragments of original bh clusters outside of our view just rotate with that period sending super long gravity waves for bit longer than 13 bln years. Blackholes themselves are approximately eternal. CMB is mostly isotropic because the sphere it was emitted from was not close enough to any of the blackholes to introduce significant distortion. Although there are some interesting statistics about CMB that suggest there was some anisotropy.
In summary universe is small, it's age is short, galaxies are dusty black holes, they fly apart because they got random burst of kinetic energy short time ago, dark matter consists of non-dusty black holes of various sizes, dark energy is just low frequency super strong gravity waves from objects way outside of our small and young observable bubble pumping energy into it. No radically new physics awaits us around the corner and all cosmological mysteries have very mundane explanations of applying laws we already know to the content we have yet to see.
Current Big Bang model is just taking math to theoretical boundaries with assumption that there exists nothing significantly different from what we see within our observation horizon. Humanity has a terrible track record with those kinds of activities. I think big bang theory in its modern form will be remembered one day as the first post-religious creation myth described in language of math (instead of natural) sharing all the follies of ones that came before it.
I think once we finally get this all sorted out, future humans will find it hilarious that so many people were convinced that dark matter was real and particles we could not detect made up 80% of the universe.
I find such thoughts exciting. In the future, children will be taught basic facts that, to us in the first half of the 21st century, are some of the most complicated questions of the universe.
I think knowledge about universe will be mostly the same but streamlined. In our modern day science we have a lot of concepts that exist only because of the path we took to get to where we are now.
Most of these interpretations will be cut out once a better ways to proper undestanding is found. I imagine electrons shells, wave function collapse, pseudo-vectors, relativistic mass, xyz ... will go away quickly to be replaced with more suitable concepts previously (and still) held back by necessity of humans to be able to do some math with pen and paper.
Dark energy is the force that counteracts the combined gravity of our enormous universe. It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
The universe started with a single Big Bang, but is maintained by an interrelated force continually applied that keeps allowing it to resist collapse, the resulting system allowing local minima such as Earth's sweet spot of smallish sun + gentle orbit.
It's almost like it was designed to be perfect, with nicely balancing counterforces, all set in a sea of brutal extrema, and all set to mathematically clockwork precision that is discoverable by intelligent inhabitants, whose bodies, themselves, operate under those same physical laws. Almost ;-)
> It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics
It may be that black holes punch through the barrier that separates us from our neighboring dimension(s), where the dark matter exists (and where our matter is dark matter to them). How that relates to your second sentence is well beyond my understanding.
There are six total vibrational dimensions, inhabiting this same 3-space, with no direct physics-style interaction between them except (somehow?!) collectively contributing to the totality of inertia that keeps the galaxies from flying apart.
All I have are breadcrumbs, my friend, and some understanding of how it fits into our lives.
Phlogiston is such a great bit of the history of "science".
>> we don't really understand gravity
I would say that what we don't understand is how the universe is structurally layered, vibrationally/dimensionally. That 5/6ths of the matter is missing lines up with our physical dimension (of energy and matter) being only one of six onionish dimensional layers, all contained within the same 3-space.
The five dimensions are three of space (x,y,z), one of time (t), and one of dimensional vibration (?). That's the structure, but I have neither the maths nor the details to divine how everything is interrelated. All the dimensions' matter does combine to contribute to the inertia of the galaxies we can see.
What is particularly difficult is that we can only measure our dimension's matter & energy with our tools, which are, of course, made of our matter & energy. In specific high-energy experiments, however, we can get some crossover of, e.g., anti-particles appearing on our side of the "wall".
That's the structure, as far as I understand it. The rest will require much maths and experiments and exploring the unknown. That is what Einstein did to expand Newton's understanding. There's at least one more level-up needed to encompass our measured corner-case phenomena.
On the topic of black holes, there is a recent paper on black holes potentially converting mass into dark energy: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10...
I'm not a physicist but it's interesting to think about the implications:
1. No singularity at the center of a black hole
2. Universe's expansion rate is not constant because it's blackholes powering it with matter
3. Eventually expansion slows, stops and reverses
And now my own crazy ideas:
1. Maybe the universe is a inside a black hole
2. Maybe the big bang was a result of the birth of another black hole somewhere else, and that the rapid expansion rate of the early universe was due to the a huge amount of matter converted into dark energy by this black hole
The universe is not inside a black hole. Inside black holes the radial coordinate is time like, which is definitely not true in our universe, where the time coordinate is timelike, and the radial coordinate is space like.
Inside of black holes looks nothing like ordinary spacetime. Inside black hole, everything in your future is with decreasing radial coordinate, which means space is shrinking until you hit the singularity where radial coordinate is zero and you have no future.
No, this depends on your choice of coordinate system - has been debunked N times on physics reddit in virtually every thread that it comes up. The EH itself is not a singularity in the observers reference frame as they cross it nor do they particularly notice when they do.
I never said EH is a singularity. I said you could notice you're inside as your timelike coordinate becomes the radial coordinate. That's something you could easily notice if you look around, it would correspond to a shrinking universe, and our universe is expanding.
The "you won't notice crossing the event horizon" troupe is true only in a very local sense. If you move around and observe the geometry around you, you can definitely tell you're inside a black hole.
> Maybe the big bang was a result of the birth of another black hole somewhere else, and that the rapid expansion rate of the early universe was due to the a huge amount of matter converted into dark energy by this black hole
There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them, and that our universe could be underneath countless layers of black holes forming universes that form black holes ad infinitum.
There is a Kurzgestadt video[0] that discusses the theory in more detail. Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=71eUes30gwc
>There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them
Calling it a "theory" is kind of wrong, it's not a "theory" according to the classical definition of the word. The word has been diluted over time to mean any thought anyone has about anything, but it used to mean something that has been proven by observation and empirical evidence. Yes, I'm being pedantic.
>A "classical" definition of a theory refers to a well-established, comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon, based on a body of evidence and often including clearly defined principles or laws, signifying a robust and widely accepted understanding of a subject, as opposed to a mere hypothesis or speculation; essentially, a "theory" in the true scientific sense
>Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
I'm not sure this qualifies as "science". It's more like stoner speculation.
Science is defined as:
>"The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
There is no observation, experimentation, or testing of theories that could ever happen for these notions about black holes and the universe(s).
It could be that the universe is a giant egg laid by a giant chicken, and that is just as plausible as "black holes create universes inside them" as far as we know.
Theories are always in a sense speculative, as they build upon other theories and measurements. And as measurements aren't definitive, but just a standardized way of comparing results, theories are just an abstract framework how we have a shared understanding of the world around us.
Theories usually are just based on other theories and just create a theory from the current available data. The less data you have, the larger the possible space that your theory might lie in.
Hypotheses are usually things that rework theories because we have some new data that showed that our theories were inaccurate/false/invalid and builds a new framework that more accurately models the data and theories that we have.
Take this just with grain of salt, this is just a philosophical view of the meanings of the words as I understand them.
It's not crazy. I'm no physicist, but I understand the math of the Big bang is similar to that of a White hole.
What gets a little mind bending for me is the idea that the physics inside the black hole can differ slightly from the ancestor universe. So black holes will preferentially create descendant universes that prefer to create more black holes.
This is a different multiverse theory than the quantum many worlds theory. The limitation of quantum many worlds is that the physics doesn't change. But in the ancestor black hole many worlds theory it does.
When you put these together, you can get an even larger multiverse, where anything that can happen does happen, but only if the laws of physics allow for black holes. That may mean the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is out there somewhere, so long as those laws of physics allow for black holes. Right? Again not a physicist.
According To Tegmark's reasoning the MCU could be out there, black holes not a prerequisite but
"there are all sizes of infinity, some infinities are bigger than others. The infinity of Real numbers is bigger than the infinity of all positive numbers, and it should be noted that while the infinity of all positive numbers is infinite the number 3 only shows up in it once."
https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-marvel-cinematic-multiv...
Not even close. There’s an infinite amount of numbers in between 0 and 1. But in an infinite multiverse for each of those numbers, you could never see 2.
Is your crazy idea not effectively the oscillating universe theory proposed by Einstein?
Since you like crazy ideas let me add mine to the pile. Black holes are the universe, always has been, always will be. The dust around them is just a sideshow. Our observable universe is just a small short-lived kinetic bubble inside of very highly energetic collision of two dense clusters of black holes that ran into each other at near light speed about 13 bln years ago and "shattered". The only expansion of space that exists is caused by galactic black holes pulling space apart ever since two clusters of them collided mixed and splinters flew in all directions at random speeds. The Hubble law in bulk is caused by simple classical fact that the the faster something was, the further it ran away from us (and everything else) in available fixed time. If the acceleration of expansion is real it's caused by everything getting pulled even more apart by gravity of matter way outside of our observation horizon that's not that neatly isotropic. I've seen a paper where they found oscillations in expansion rate of universe at timescales of billions of years. If that checks out with new data then probably some larger fragments of original bh clusters outside of our view just rotate with that period sending super long gravity waves for bit longer than 13 bln years. Blackholes themselves are approximately eternal. CMB is mostly isotropic because the sphere it was emitted from was not close enough to any of the blackholes to introduce significant distortion. Although there are some interesting statistics about CMB that suggest there was some anisotropy.
In summary universe is small, it's age is short, galaxies are dusty black holes, they fly apart because they got random burst of kinetic energy short time ago, dark matter consists of non-dusty black holes of various sizes, dark energy is just low frequency super strong gravity waves from objects way outside of our small and young observable bubble pumping energy into it. No radically new physics awaits us around the corner and all cosmological mysteries have very mundane explanations of applying laws we already know to the content we have yet to see.
Current Big Bang model is just taking math to theoretical boundaries with assumption that there exists nothing significantly different from what we see within our observation horizon. Humanity has a terrible track record with those kinds of activities. I think big bang theory in its modern form will be remembered one day as the first post-religious creation myth described in language of math (instead of natural) sharing all the follies of ones that came before it.
If that’s the case, why was it a bang instead of a slow leak?
The initial collapse of a star into the black hole would have been the big bang.
> That creates a problem for supermassive black holes.
I don’t think the black holes are the ones with the problem.
I think once we finally get this all sorted out, future humans will find it hilarious that so many people were convinced that dark matter was real and particles we could not detect made up 80% of the universe.
The next thing you will tell us is the Aether is not real.
Aether is back on the table:
https://youtu.be/Zf7H7P8QrGo
I find such thoughts exciting. In the future, children will be taught basic facts that, to us in the first half of the 21st century, are some of the most complicated questions of the universe.
I think knowledge about universe will be mostly the same but streamlined. In our modern day science we have a lot of concepts that exist only because of the path we took to get to where we are now.
Most of these interpretations will be cut out once a better ways to proper undestanding is found. I imagine electrons shells, wave function collapse, pseudo-vectors, relativistic mass, xyz ... will go away quickly to be replaced with more suitable concepts previously (and still) held back by necessity of humans to be able to do some math with pen and paper.
Completely agree and feel the same way about dark energy.
Dark energy is the force that counteracts the combined gravity of our enormous universe. It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
The universe started with a single Big Bang, but is maintained by an interrelated force continually applied that keeps allowing it to resist collapse, the resulting system allowing local minima such as Earth's sweet spot of smallish sun + gentle orbit.
It's almost like it was designed to be perfect, with nicely balancing counterforces, all set in a sea of brutal extrema, and all set to mathematically clockwork precision that is discoverable by intelligent inhabitants, whose bodies, themselves, operate under those same physical laws. Almost ;-)
> It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics
> It's almost like it was designed to be perfect…
It’s almost like the ones that aren’t ideal for life don’t tend to have much life to notice that fact.
> [Dark energy] also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
That's totaly wrong. The movenent of electrons arround rhe nucleus is explained by the Schoedinger equation that does not use dark energy at all.
Can it be that black holes are mainly eating dark matter?
Or maybe they already proved that black holes consume some dark matter but at a much lower rate to explained this.
It's possible, but only because we don't know what dark matter is. But that doesn't seem to be a leading explanation.
It may be that black holes punch through the barrier that separates us from our neighboring dimension(s), where the dark matter exists (and where our matter is dark matter to them). How that relates to your second sentence is well beyond my understanding.
There are six total vibrational dimensions, inhabiting this same 3-space, with no direct physics-style interaction between them except (somehow?!) collectively contributing to the totality of inertia that keeps the galaxies from flying apart.
All I have are breadcrumbs, my friend, and some understanding of how it fits into our lives.
Maybe phlogiston really has both negative and imaginary mass. /Snark
I think this and JWST early galaxy findings mean we don't really understand gravity.
Phlogiston is such a great bit of the history of "science".
>> we don't really understand gravity
I would say that what we don't understand is how the universe is structurally layered, vibrationally/dimensionally. That 5/6ths of the matter is missing lines up with our physical dimension (of energy and matter) being only one of six onionish dimensional layers, all contained within the same 3-space.
The five dimensions are three of space (x,y,z), one of time (t), and one of dimensional vibration (?). That's the structure, but I have neither the maths nor the details to divine how everything is interrelated. All the dimensions' matter does combine to contribute to the inertia of the galaxies we can see.
What is particularly difficult is that we can only measure our dimension's matter & energy with our tools, which are, of course, made of our matter & energy. In specific high-energy experiments, however, we can get some crossover of, e.g., anti-particles appearing on our side of the "wall".
That's the structure, as far as I understand it. The rest will require much maths and experiments and exploring the unknown. That is what Einstein did to expand Newton's understanding. There's at least one more level-up needed to encompass our measured corner-case phenomena.
An inverse Dyson sphere.