Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe(again I know)

[bekdik]

Ah, fractal universes!!

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

Could Heaven be beyond our black hole? *mind explodes

 

[Techne]

Silly nonsense, really. This notion has most cosmologists chuckling and almost all trained philosophers suppressing a snigger.

(Don't bother trying to remind me of the history of ideas / science - I'm quite familiar with that turf. The fundamental problem is that by definition we could never know. If we could then we're not talking other universes. The word 'universe' actually means something.)

Yeah, the common understanding of universe that it is the totality of everything that exists. So if you read the title as "Every Black Hole Contains a New Totality of Everything That Exists". Doesn't really make sense, but it does make for a fantastic sensationalist piece. "Cosmos" would probably have been a better word. The concept of a multiverse is also misleading given the standard view of what it means to be a universe. Again, the universe may be composed of multiple cosmoses.

The idea that our currently expanding cosmos is part of another black hole is an intriguing hypothesis. The next step is to gather evidence for this view.

Still a man made word that was made up with the knowledge at that time. Oh and if you use that as a base for debate proof one can the simply state that the word Multiverse actually mean something as well.

I am not saying that there is such a thing as a multiverse or even if there is such a thing as a boundary to our Universe. We use math for this one based on observation, for all we know the current universe turns in on itself.

I do find it funny that when it comes to emotions and actions, religious people are the 1st to claim that we should not apply human limits and lack of understanding but when it comes to the universe they do exactly the same.

Please don't generalize like this (bolded part).

Time after all is a man made concept and is only measured as unidirectional for matter in general, its not the "law" as proven when broken down to its quantum state. Time moves in every direction for quantum particles, hell it gets so warped that there is even a theory that every single electron is the exact same electron throughout the universe.

You claim:
1) Time after all is a man made concept
2) Is only measured as unidirectional for matter in general
3) Time moves in every direction for quantum particles

It is unclear what your view of time is though. Do you understand time merely a function of change? On this view, time does not move contrary to your third claim. Or do you see time as some sort of objectively and absolute existing aspect of reality. Again, this implies that time cannot move, contrary to your third claim. So I am interested to see how you think "time moves".

I see time as merely a function of change.

If you remove the time aspect for your deity as he claims in the bible that he is not bound by time you will realize that nothing is impossible, and putting limits on what or even how he created is just removing the omi part from omnipotent. Does the universe or multiverse or even infinite loop black holes make him any less powerful?

Where does the Bible explicitly make such a claim?
Anyway, logic dictates that certain things are logically impossible. You may abandon logic at your own peril, but then you might as well abandon empirical science since it presupposes some truths coming from the science of logic.

 

[isie]

what about micro black holes which in theory last only a few seconds and then evaporate, if all black holes create a new universes and micro black holes do the same would that mean you have universes blinking in and out of existance

 

[Elimentals]

Please don't generalize like this (bolded part).

Yeas sorry my bad should have used the word "most" or "everyday".

You claim:
1) Time after all is a man made concept
2) Is only measured as unidirectional for matter in general
3) Time moves in every direction for quantum particles

It is unclear what your view of time is though. Do you understand time merely a function of change? On this view, time does not move contrary to your third claim. Or do you see time as some sort of objectively and absolute existing aspect of reality. Again, this implies that time cannot move, contrary to your third claim. So I am interested to see how you think "time moves".

I see time as merely a function of change.

Like I said I failed at communication 101, (Dyslexic trying to put words to thought to someone that places all weight on the words chosen: recepy for disaster) but lets try anyway.

Time is a measure of change and true for the sum but not when broken down to quantum state as particles can be in more than one place at the same time. So in my view the current cosmos its observed as moving in one direction as a sum, that is in another where it could be the opposite. That cosmos could again be in another that one time might not even have a direction at all(everything happens at once) and in an infinite time. Inside that universe it can contain another cosmos that could be ours, call it an infinite loop with different directions per state, or it could be that everything is like a cosmic foam and the bubbles are different cosmoses with its own direction of time. and this foam could be just the resonance of an electron in our cosmos.

Where does the Bible explicitly make such a claim?
Anyway, logic dictates that certain things are logically impossible. You may abandon logic at your own peril, but then you might as well abandon empirical science since it presupposes some truths coming from the science of logic.

Well we can start with Genesis 1:1 where he created everything, or 2 Peter 3 where a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day for him, or the fact that in Revelations 4:8 it claims that he is he was and still will come. Simply put if something is and always was it can have no start nor finish so therefore has not time aspect. We can move over to PD section if you wanna continue in this discussion.

What I merly meant to say is to try and limit a deity to our cosmos is an insult of note, and removing him from his timeless state would invoke the who created him clause.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Fits with this theory if I understand it correctly,

Posted this here before.
http://www.damninteresting.com/evolving-universes/

In order to tackle how complexity came into being, most scientific theories postulate that there are an infinite number of universes, and each of them are host to its own set of physical laws. Some would therefore have laws where chemistry cannot function, and thus are home to nothing more complex than a vast field of hydrogen. Some would have to be like ours: rife with complexity where a star larger than 1.44 times the size of ours can collapse into a black hole. And the black hole is the point where Cosmological Natural Selection begins.

Here, at the dawn of a new universe is where Smolin’s theory fits. He postulates that the new universe’s laws are influenced by those of the parent. Thus, our universe which has complexity and is therefore very successful at creating black holes/new universes is spawning universes that also have complexity, and will pass that trait onto their progeny … much like evolution. However, unlike evolution, there are no known universe-predators culling the ill and unfit universes from the multiverse, therefore “Cosmological Natural Selection” might be a less apt name than “Fecund Universes”; it’s not a race for survival, just reproduction.

The whole article is quite insteresting to read, might sound a bit far fetched, but still interesting.

 

[Elimentals]

I can explain how I see the current cosmos in the following example from what I know about quantim physics.

Call everything we know/see as an image on an analog TV, if you turn the dail in any direction you gonna get static but if you turn it far enough you might just get another channel that has nothing to do with the current one. The pattern that form that image is when the laws are tilted in the direction that pick up that channel.

Now add to that that there is a possibility that there is other TV's next to the one we are watching, at the same time there is a possibility of seeing a TV on the very TV we watching.

In no way does it explain who or what made any of the TV's just what image is on it.

 

[Geriatrix]

Why am I seeing bible verses in this thread? Seriously? Can you keep that in philly?

 

[Techne]

Time is a measure of change and true for the sum but not when broken down to quantum state as particles can be in more than one place at the same time.

I don't think quantum physics explicitly proves this, this is just an interpretation that appears to contradict the law of non-contradiction. I see no reason why this interpretation should be accepted as others can perfectly accompany the empirical results from quantum physics without contradicting the Law of Non-contradiction.

So in my view the current cosmos its observed as moving in one direction as a sum, that is in another where it could be the opposite. That cosmos could again be in another that one time might not even have a direction at all(everything happens at once) and in an infinite time. Inside that universe it can contain another cosmos that could be ours, call it an infinite loop with different directions per state, or it could be that everything is like a cosmic foam and the bubbles are different cosmoses with its own direction of time. and this foam could be just the resonance of an electron in our cosmos.

Yeah sure, it could be, it depends on how you want to see reality I suppose.

Well we can start with Genesis 1:1 where he created everything, or 2 Peter 3 where a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day for him, or the fact that in Revelations 4:8 it claims that he is he was and still will come. Simply put if something is and always was it can have no start nor finish so therefore has not time aspect. We can move over to PD section if you wanna continue in this discussion.

What I merly meant to say is to try and limit a deity to our cosmos is an insult of note, and removing him from his timeless state would invoke the who created him clause.

Fair enough, while the Bible does not explicitly say God is outside of time, one may perhaps infer it from certain passages. I don't see how this puts any limits on God though...

 

[Geriatrix]

I can explain how I see the current cosmos in the following example from what I know about quantim physics.

Call everything we know/see as an image on an analog TV, if you turn the dail in any direction you gonna get static but if you turn it far enough you might just get another channel that has nothing to do with the current one. The pattern that form that image is when the laws are tilted in the direction that pick up that channel.

Now add to that that there is a possibility that there is other TV's next to the one we are watching, at the same time there is a possibility of seeing a TV on the very TV we watching.

In no way does it explain who or what made any of the TV's just what image is on it.

I like Einstein's watch analogy.

 

[Devill]

This is amazing. It also reminds me a bit of the Multiverse-"school of thought"

 

[Geriatrix]

This is amazing. It also reminds me a bit of the Multiverse-"school of thought"

What's going on at CERN? Has there been hints of super symmetry yet?

 

[Devill]

What's going on at CERN? Has there been hints of super symmetry yet?

Haha, I had to go read up on super symmetry now as I have not read anything physics related in months... damn youz

"Short" version:

Supersymmetry, or SUSY, is a particle physics theory that suggests all the particles that we know exist have a ‘superpartner’ particle. These are expected to have more mass than their counterparts but, most importantly, they have a different quantum property called spin, which occurs in nature in fixed units. For example, the superpartner of an electron, which has a spin with a half-number value, will have a spin with a whole-number value.

This theory gives rise to a whole new set of ‘sparticles’ – supersymmetric particles – and doubles the total number of fundamental particles in physics. The sparticles are named similarly to the original particles, producing names such as squark, selectron and sproton.

These supersymmetric particles have yet to be found, so their masses are unknown, but the lightest of them could also provide a candidate for dark matter. Dark matter is the only current explanation for the mass of all observed galaxies: our observations have revealed that they have far more mass than is actually measured.

That would be a big find and I doubt CERN will release anything till the numbers have been run 400 billion times if they have found proof

 

[Geriatrix]

That would be a big find and I doubt CERN will release anything till the numbers have been run 400 billion times if they have found proof

I can see it now;
This...is...SPARTICLES!!!

 

[Devill]

I can see it now;
This...is...SPARTICLES!!!

Whahahahahaha

If I read things right this will help explain a lot of theoretical "stumbling blocks".

 

[Elimentals]

I like Einstein's watch analogy.

Hmmm, can you maybe point me in the right direction as the only watch analog I know is the one christians use to talk about a watchmaker.

Why I use TV's in my view is because of the static, its how I see quantum particles, its in total chaos but if you tilt certain laws just a fraction to one direction you will get a different result than changing it in another.

 

[Geriatrix]

Hmmm, can you maybe point me in the right direction as the only watch analog I know is the one christians use to talk about a watchmaker.

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison.

In other words we can conceive of very, very accurate models of how stuff works but we don't really, truly know. Might not be 100% accurate but I like it.

 

[Elimentals]

In other words we can conceive of very, very accurate models of how stuff works but we don't really, truly know. Might not be 100% accurate but I like it.

Thanx, All I could find in Google was the ID crap.

And yeah I like Einsteins watch analogy as well.
Must admit it deals on a different topic than the one I was trying to convey in regard to multi-/universe and quantum physics.

 

[Geriatrix]

Thanx, All I could find in Google was the ID crap.

And yeah I like Einsteins watch analogy as well.
Must admit it deals on a different topic than the one I was trying to convey in regard to multi-/universe and quantum physics.

It's about us primates looking at nature and trying to communicate accurately what the hell is happening all around us.

 

[Devill]

Hmmm, can you maybe point me in the right direction as the only watch analog I know is the one christians use to talk about a watchmaker.

Why I use TV's in my view is because of the static, its how I see quantum particles, its in total chaos but if you tilt certain laws just a fraction to one direction you will get a different result than changing it in another.

In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it’s ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious, he may form some picture of a mechanism for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one, which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility and meaning of such comparison.