Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,366 Year: 18,402/19,786 Month: 822/1,705 Week: 74/518 Day: 0/74 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Hole Universe Model Questions
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 69 (663165)
05-21-2012 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Census Takers Hatmaker
05-20-2012 9:05 PM


Welcome to EvC, CTH. You seem like you'll fit right in. I hope you stick around. Look up our members 'cavediver' and 'Son Goku' in the members section for our local experts in cosmological physics.

Census Takers Hatmaker

WTF does that mean? You make hats for the people who take censuses?

Bearing in mind that our universe began in a singularity (all that mass in that tiny space) and that if a black hole were the same size as our universe is now, it would have about the same mass, temperature, behave pretty much the same way etc...

Could you expand on this a bit? I understand cosmology fairly well, and am pretty smart, so feel free to use a bit of jargon and/or math. I'm under the impression that the inside of a black hole would be much different than its surroundings. If we have black holes within spacetime, then how could all of spacetime be likened to the inside of a black hole? I've never encountered this position before and its interesting me.

As the universe expanded the distance between the singularity and the event horizon increased,

Wasn't the singularity "gone" after inflation? Or are you saying that it is still sitting "over there" and we're expanding away from it?

The really great thing about black holes billions of years wide is that you could fall freely through one your whole life and never hit the singlularity.

If you liken the entire universe to one giant black hole, then where would the singularity exist? I'm under the impression that "the singularity" is not some "thing" that exists somewhere.

And as for falling into a singularity that's already moved away from you in excess of lightspeed... ok, I'll stop now.

No, go on. If we're past the event horizon of the universal black hole singularity, then where would it "be" in relation to us? Or am I completely missing the point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Census Takers Hatmaker, posted 05-20-2012 9:05 PM Census Takers Hatmaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2012 11:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 13 by Census Takers Hatmaker, posted 05-24-2012 9:47 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 69 (663169)
05-21-2012 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
05-21-2012 11:34 PM


It might be easier to picture if you understand "inside of a black hole" to mean within the event horizon of the black hole. I am not aware of any particular reason why black holes could not exist within the event horizon of another black hole.

I suppose a black hole could exist within the event horizon of another, but I can't imagin a universe like ours being a really big black whole because, well, to be blunt: because they're really fucking dense...

Isn't our universe less dense than a black hole?

At any rate, in the case of a stupendously enormous (universe sized???) black hole, there would be no sensation noted when crossing the event horizon. Yes it is true that light cannot escape from the black hole, but if you were really far from the event horizon, and also stupendously far from the singularity I think things could look pretty normal.

That makes sense, but I thought CTH was likening our entire (observable) universe to being one gigantic black hole that we were within. The way I understand it, things would be a lot different if that was the case, but he seems to be saying otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2012 11:34 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2012 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Son Goku, posted 05-24-2012 6:12 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 24 by jasonlang, posted 07-14-2012 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 69 (664764)
06-05-2012 12:27 AM


Bumpdate
That's a bump/update...

This article is on topic:

http://phys.org/...ack-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

quote:
Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.

I ain't got the time right now to get into this, but want it to be on record for future reference.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Echetos, posted 07-10-2012 10:15 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 69 (667789)
07-12-2012 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Echetos
07-11-2012 6:06 PM


Re: Bumpdate
If it doesn't stop expanding and start contracting, then it'll look like a horn instead of a sphere or apple:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Echetos, posted 07-11-2012 6:06 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Echetos, posted 07-12-2012 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 38 of 69 (668122)
07-17-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Echetos
07-12-2012 5:56 PM


Re: Bumpdate
I said in the original blog post that the universe is expanding and contracting at the same time.

How's that work? Aren't those mutaully exclusive?

Wish I could figure out how to paste this image in here but here's a link:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/...w/SkC0D2Q9zKs/s1600/Diagram3.bmp

You just have to use the "img" tags: Put and open tag [img] in front and a close tag [/img] in back. If you input this into the text box:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7IVRwmstY8k/T3EfMzTeZrI/AAAAAAAAACw/SkC0D2Q9zKs/s1600/Diagram3.bmp[/img]

It will turn into this:

You can also click on the "Peek" button on the bottom right of any post to see the coding that they entered into the text box.

I guess the main point—if we can bracket the shape issue for a moment—is the fact that the empirical evidence suggests the universe is expanding toward a singularity.

But if the singularity is a point, then at some time the universe is going to have to start contracting towars it, not expanding.

In the picture above, are those two planes supposed to be at the same place? If you're going upwards from A=B=C, then its expanding towrads the upper plane. If you're going upwards from D, then its contracting towards A=B=C, not expanding.

The example I used in the blog post

You wrote the blog?

The example I used in the blog post was tossing pennies off of a tall building. Drop three pennies in 5 second intervals and the first penny will always be moving faster than the second, and the second than the third, because of the acceleration due to gravity. The observer—the person dropping the pennies—might conclude that space is moving away from him (expanding), or, he might conclude that the pennies (i.e. red-shifted galaxies) are falling toward a gravitational singularity. Which they are, of course: the center of the earth.

The pennies are both moving away from him and falling towards the center of the earth at the same time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Echetos, posted 07-12-2012 5:56 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Echetos, posted 07-18-2012 10:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 40 of 69 (668273)
07-19-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Echetos
07-18-2012 10:40 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Yes. I wrote the blog. I’d assumed since a link was provided in the initial forum post that the people who responded at least skimmed the contents.

I looked at the pictures!

But seriously, we have a rule here where we say: "we don't debate by link". I'm here to have a dialog directly with other people. I want to read what you have to say, not what you read on some other website somewhere. We expect people to explain the concept in their own words here, and then supply the link as a reference. So yeah, I wouldn't be suprised if most people skipped most of your link.

The topic of the blog—the Black Hole Universe Model (BHUM)—is hard enough to digest for me even after writing it. And I’m the first person to admit that I don’t fully understand the implications of such a model. But I'll defend it tooth and nail because I believe it to be intuitively true.

You better be careful about making your reasoning circular... if you believe it to be true because you wrote it and you wrote it because you believe it to be true, then you're going to have a hard time learning anything about it.

And I don't understand how you can have trouble digesting and understanding something you yourself wrote. No offense, but doesn't that mean that you're just making shit up? At that point, why should I consider your model over, say, this one:

Seriously tho; what, specifically, makes yours better?

The cosmology presented in the post is highly speculative. By that I mean it’s metaphysical.

Like magic?

I obviously can’t prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe is one gigantic black-sive-white hole. I’m simply saying this sort of interpretation—which is not a new idea and shares many features with other popular multiverse theories—seems to me to be the most likely scenario given the current empirical evidence.

That's cool, I don't mind discussing hypotheticals.

Yes. The concepts “expanding” and “contracting” are polar opposites. It’s a classic example of a disjunctive syllogism: either X or Y. But that’s precisely the reason the BHUM holds water. This antequeted sort of thinking is outdated, unscientific. It doesn’t correspond with the physical realities we see today.

How so? What pysical realities are you seeing today that suggest that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” as being polar opposites is outdated and unscientific?

According to the principle of quantum superposition, physical systems—such as Alice’s and Bob’s entangled particles—can simultaneously be in many different states, including ones which are mutually exclusive.

Sure, but because one counterintuitive thing can be real doesn't mean that they all are. And things that happen on quantum levels don't really translate to the macro states that expanding and contracting apply to.

I would argue that the universe as a whole should behave similarly, if not identically, to the smallest observed particle. And why shouldn’t it?

Because its bigger. Different forces are going to come into play. For example, we can ignore gravity when plotting the path of an electron, but we cannot do that for a planet.


Removing the rest by edit because I misread you.

The pennies are both moving away from him and falling towards the center of the earth at the same time.

I should have specified that the penny analogy presumes the negation of friction and air resistance (both of which play no role in galactic physics)

That's irrelevant. You said:

quote:
The observer—the person dropping the pennies—might conclude that space is moving away from him (expanding), or, he might conclude that the pennies (i.e. red-shifted galaxies) are falling toward a gravitational singularity.

And I'm saying that he could conclude both of those things, its not an either/or with the pennies.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : remove misread part


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Echetos, posted 07-18-2012 10:40 PM Echetos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-19-2012 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 69 (668277)
07-19-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
07-19-2012 10:20 AM


Oh, whoops, I misread what I quoted >.<

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-19-2012 10:20 AM jar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 69 (668869)
07-25-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Echetos
07-25-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Bumpdate
All reasoning is circular. This circularity belongs even to the most rigorous of traditions, including science, mathematics, and logic. Give me one truth arrived at by noncircular reasoning and you’ve solved a foundational epistemological conundrum—the problem of contemporary philosophy.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Here is non-circular reasoning:

If you are a human then you are a mammal. You are a human. Therefore, you are a mammal.

That's a straight-forward deduction. Here is circular reasoning:

The Bible says that all scripture is true. The Bible is scripture, therefore it is true. Ergo, the claim that all scripture is true is, itself, true.

That has nothing to do with the epistemological conundrum of knowledge ultimately relying on some axiomatic truth.

No offense taken. And I guess I am just making shit up—but how else would any progress occur?

By following the evidence where it leads instead of making shit up.

People come up with theories and those theories are tested. General Relativity, for example, was considered balls crazy until it wasn’t proven wrong by people staring at a solar eclipse.

Please don't compare yourself to Einstein. He wasn't some layperson making up shit at their computer desk. And he wasn't making shit up like you are. He was deriving mathematical equations and exploring the consequences of their explanations. Its not even remotely the same.

How so? What physical realities are you seeing today that suggest that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” as being polar opposites is outdated and unscientific?

I’ve already given an answer to this, which you sort of touched on: the principle of quantum superposition.

And I rebutted that by explaining that the concepts “expanding” and “contracting” are on a macroscopic level that quantum superposition doesn't apply to.

Things that happen on a quantum level necessarily translate to the macro states because they literally comprise the foundation of those states.

No, that's not right. As I said, at different scales different forces apply. You can ignore gravity when plotting the path of an electron, but you have to take it into account when ploting the path of a planet. Quantum superposition cannot be used to explain the motion of planets.

So people here that claim or feign to know for certain that the BHUM model is incorrect have simply missed the point.

Has anyone really claimed certainty on that? I think you're missing the point:

Its not that we know your whole theory is wrong, its that some of the things it relies on aren't being described correctly. Your defense to this seems to be: "Well, it could be that way"

But you don't offer any reason why is should be that way. And now that we're getting into the details of how we know you're not providing any shoulds, you're retreating into the shadows of 'all knowledge is circular' and 'Einstein made shit up too'.

I’m not saying I’m right. I admit I have no idea, for sure, what sorts of rules (or Rule) govern this amazing cosmos. All I’m saying is—which many people have said before—is that it seems, according to empirical observation, that our universe seems to behave like what I’ve described here:

http://scottsteffens.blogspot.com/2012/04/bhum-bee-hum.html

So far nobody has raised a single meaningful reason why this is not the case.

Sure I have:

Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.

A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.

The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Echetos, posted 07-25-2012 3:12 AM Echetos has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 69 (669052)
07-26-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Echetos
07-26-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Bumpdate
Well now you're just grasping at straws...

Sure I have:

Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.

A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.

The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

Your first two points assume that General Relativity (GR) provides a complete description of all physical phenomena.

How so? I don't see it having anything to do with GR.

It also contains the implicit premise that the universe as a whole should be treated as an ordinary macroscopic object.

Not really, its more about what a singularity is than the specifics of the object.

Your third point is just factually untrue. http://www1.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/MacroQuantum.pdf

C'mon, I'm talking about planets n'stuff and you bring up a superconducting quantum interference device being put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states. And that paper even says:

quote:
there has been no experimental demonstration of a quantum superposition of truly macroscopically distinct states.

According to the BHUM time is essentially unreal...

Yikes, I'm afraid that's the nail in the coffin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Echetos, posted 07-26-2012 3:56 PM Echetos has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 69 (669789)
08-02-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-02-2012 9:50 PM


Re: spacetime?
Are you just making stuff up?

Waves are not objects either. Waves are the motion of the ocean. It's water molecules that are moving. Waves absolutely need a physical medium to occur. Neither space nor time nor the combination of both can be such a medium.

So then, what's the medium of EMR waves?

Both space and time are abstractions. Combining two abstractions doesn't make a fabric. It makes only a metaphor or a co-ordinates map at best.

And how do you know that? That is, if you're not just making stuff up...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 9:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 11:19 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 69 (669793)
08-02-2012 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-02-2012 11:19 PM


Re: spacetime?
I don't know what EMR is exactly and do not pretend to know.

Electro Magnetic Radiation. Its that shit you were commenting on... er, I mean, making stuff up about

All I am saying is that either there is a real physical medium or the whole concept of waves and particles is a temporary place-holder standing for something that is not yet understood.

And how do you know that? Keep in mind: Wave theories do make verified predictions.

The concept works well enough as it is even if the explanation is absurd. It's just that no absurd explanation satisfies so it cannot last indefinitely.

Are you saying: "It doesn't matter if the stuff I'm making up makes sense or not"?

Let me know if you're not interested in the stuff your making up making sense so I don't waste too much time on you. On the other hand, if you want to actaully discuss something I'll be around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2012 11:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019