Inside and Outside, Black Holes and Wormholes

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Dec 4, 2007.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Black Holes, Worm Holes and Other Universes

    Gravity has a strange effect on light. It will couple with light, and bend it around large masses. The idea arose from Einstein, and on the 9th of November in 1919, light was seen to bend around the sun during an eclipse. The times reported on the discovery, 'space would no longer be looked at as extending indefinitely in all directions. Straight lines would not exist in Einstien’s space. They would all be curved and if they traveled far enough they would return to their starting point.'

    Finding that our universe was not a Euclidean flat spacetime was indeed a marvel of physics. It showed that space was highly twisted and curved into time, and that gravity itself was a product of these bends in time and space through the presence of matter. It was these types of distortions that led the way for a new prediction in Einstien’s 'theory of relativity.' It predicted a black hole - a whopping gravitational body, unto which nothing can escape its grasp. The center of a black hole has perfect infinite curvature; and it is here that the distortions of space and time become so highly stressed it can actually rip a hole in the fabric of spacetime itself. This is the singularity at the center of the black hole - but it wasn't the same as the singularity of the big bang.

    A black hole has this strength because it is a dense concentration of mass. Actually, this mass is so dense, it actually drags space and time around with it, and the curvature it produces is fantastic. For a space shuttle to leave earth's gravitational pull, it needs to have a speed that is strong enough to make the 'escape velocity.' You can imagine the escape velocity is stronger the closer you are to the earth's core. To leave earth, you need a constant speed of something like 25,000 mph.

    Now, take the speed of a photon (light) - the fastest particle known. The speed of light is very hard to grasp - saying that it travels 186,000 miles a second isn't always easy to reconcile; just remember, the sun is 15 million km away, and it takes a photon a little over 8.3 minutes to reach us!
    Now imagine a massive body in space with such a high concentration of mass, it is actually able to stop light itself - this is a black hole - and this must mean it has an escape velocity of light! A photon, traveling quite happily will be abruptly slowed down until it reached zero-speed. All Luxens (that is particles with a speed of light v=c) and obviously all Bradyons (particles with a velocity under the speed of light v<c) would inexorably be trapped by the intense pull of the black hole... only a hypothetical particle called the 'Tachyon' could escape its pull, quite easily actually. A Tachyon is a particle that moves faster than light v>c.

    The idea that an object with a large concentration of dense mass goes right back to the 18th centaury - just after Einstein developed his important relativity theory. It was a physicist Karl Schwarzschild (that is were the black hole gets the name, ‘Schwarzschild radius’ from) who discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an exotic object. It was only later in the 1930's that theorists Oppenheimer, Volkoff and Snyder took the theory seriously.
    Certain stars that cannot support itself against its own gravitational field have a special destiny ahead of them - a star that does this will collapse and form into a black hole. It was John A. Wheeler that coined the term 'black hole' - before that, it had been called 'frozen stars.' Our star, as big as it is, will not collapse until another 5-6 billion years. Altogether, our sun will have lived a total of 11 billion years, and this is quite a good lifespan. Other stars will not be so lucky. They would collapse into a spherical black hole in half that time.

    Let's consider a star that is 666,000 times that of the mass of planet earth - this star will have a lifespan of about 5.5 billion years. And there will be much heavier stars out there. You can imagine, stars with a lesser life span with 5.5 billion years as a lifespan would not have given earth enough time to develop life properly; in fact, if science is correct, there wouldn't have been enough time to allow human life to form, considering science informs us that human life did not appear until only about 100,000 years ago, and the earth being 6 billion-odd years old itself. This is another factor that makes human life on earth rather extraordinary.

    Physicist Stephen Hawkings, arguably the best mind in the world, has spent much of his time working on the theory of Black Holes. His contribution into the hypothetical black hole is astounding, and if you want more information on his work, i advise you to read his book, 'A Brief History of Time.'
    A black hole has something called 'the event horizon' - the event horizon is the spherical surface, or boundary of the black hole. This is the point, that if anything passes it, nothing can escape (apart from a Tachyon mentioned earlier), or unless an object began its journey from the interior; this is because of a strange rule: You cannot pass the surface twice.
    It was this reason it was called the event horizon, just like a sunset horizon - you can travel towards it but never quite reach it, or at least, this is what it would be like for an observer sitting comfortably away, watching me traveling towards the black hole... It would seem to take an infinitely long amount of time, and it would look like as if the closer i got to it, the slower i would be in momentum, until it looked as if i had stopped completely. This is because time becomes highly dilated between the traveler and the observer who is a bit away - this is the bizarre effect of relativity. We must take these facts into consideration, when one moves closer to the weird singularity. If our calculations are singular, this means that aspects, like a time interval, or space itself take on infinite values. If this is hard to imagine or a little tedious on the mind - do not fret - anything you don't understand just move on and tackle it later.

    If one passed the event horizon, you will inevitably move closer and closer to the singularity in its center, moving faster and faster because space is dragging you closer to the speed of light.
    To an observer who is sitting comfortably far away from the event horizon, the hole itself appears static. However, if we moved a little closer to the boundary, it would become visible that the hole itself has a remarkable velocity - in fact, a black hole spins with a velocity of the speed of light. Once inside of the black hole, spacetime are distorted to such a degree, that space and time switch roles (more on this in next part). We could not jump into a nonrotating black hole - the force of the black hole would rip matter apart!

    How big can a black hole be?

    Most black holes will have formed from supernovae, so it is expected that they will be as big as a standard candle (usually depicted as bright white dwarfs - the remnant of stars) and much bigger, and if Stephen Hawkings is correct, each supergalaxy has a supermassive black hole at their centers. And if theory is correct, the universe itself has a supermassive black hole at its center, where all matter orbits over billion upon billions of years. And there is even a theory suggesting our universe is a black hole itself, based on the fact that our universe has a lot of mass, but isn't too dense. And if black holes do exist, Stephen Hawking believes we might be able to detect a small black hole, as it will radiate a glow... a natural lantern in space. I presume that black holes would also be more visible nearer stars. Light reflects off natural objects and creates the ability to see them. A black hole would absorb light, and it would become visible as a hole.
    The attention black holes have received over the years is truly mind-blowing... let us just hope that the work does not go in vain, and that black holes do indeed exist. They should exist... after all, Cosmology and Relativity Theories predict them as real 'things out there'. Whether or not they are indeed portals into other universes is another thing... Though, if theory is right, a lot of physicists will be proven wrong; it would seem to indicate a universe without the collapse of the wave function, as we shall see later in part three.

    Falling into a Black Hole

    If black holes do actually exist, there is some debate as to whether a human could endure a trip into one – the reason why is because anything that falls into Black Holes get’s shredded into spaghetti. Why would we even want to jump into a black hole? Well, theory says that 'wormholes' which are topological openings inside the black hole might lead to other universes! This is the theory of parallel universes, and we shall see more on this theory in next part. It was John A. Wheeler who named these openings as wormholes. The problem is, if one does not enter a wormhole in the correct way, there is the chance that the object will be stretched apart.

    It was in 1935, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen predicted that black holes themselves where natural bridges into another possible universe. This bridge from one world into another, came to be known as the 'Einstein-Rosen Bridge,' and most of the developments of this theory came from several physicists - some being Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler and Martin Kruskal.
    So let's imagine i decided to jump into a spinning black hole inside a space ship... what would i see? Well, before i entered, i would see nothing spectacular. I would just see a big ball of darkness. I wouldn't even see it rotate at first - neither do i feel anything - i am in what is called a state of 'free-fall'.
    Free-fall is when all the atoms and molecules i am made of are all being pulled at the same rate. Even my ship is being pulled at the same pace towards the black hole. A good way to compare this is with astronauts that orbit our earth - they too are in a state of free-fall.

    Now i begin to pass the event horizon (remember that is the first boundary, or surface). Now something quite remarkable happens. The space coordinates switches roles with the time coordinate. What does this mean? Well, we move through space freely, back and forth without any problems, and when we consider time, that imaginary dimension, we tend to think we sweep along with it without recourse. Once i pass the event horizon space begins to drag me and my ship, and i begin to move in one direction only - that being forward - however, i begin to move through time backwards and forwards, just as easily as i had moved through the space dimension. In this case, we say that space has become 'timelike', and time has a 'spacelike' character - they are thus interchangeable given the correct conditions.
    As i move closer and closer to the black hole, the force of gravity becomes stronger and stronger. Now, suppose my legs are closer to the dreaded center of the black hole, i will begin to feel as if my body was being stretched. A greater force will be pulling at my feet, than that of the force pulling at my head. This is called the 'gravitational tidal effect' - thus called because it is similar to the tidal effect on earth caused by the moon.

    If i looked out of a window towards the singularity, i would see something rather interesting. The center will look like a dark sphere, with a halo of light surrounding it. This light is coming from another universe. And, if i looked back out of the event horizon, i might be fortunate enough to see the universe, and all of its history and future flash past me as if it took no time at all. I would see all the stars die out... most of them forming black holes, but they would not be visible to the naked eye. I might even see the universe undergo an 'omega point' (the end), as a 'Big Crunch' were everything is drawn back, or quite possibly by a 'Big Rip', were everything physical is ripped apart by the universal pressure of acceleration, (note however, someone outside of the black hole cannot see you).

    Now i have crashed into the dreaded singularity, and i will no longer exist. Here, just like the Big Bang singularity mentioned in part one of chapter one, everything takes on infinite attributes - the laws of physics become invalid. However, you might not crash into the center. It is possible you can fall into the 'inner horizon' - this horizon is adjacent to the singular region. Here, space and time flows the correct way. In theory, you can float around in the inner horizon without ever crashing into the dreaded center.

    Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger
    than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;

    g=(GM)/d2

    Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak.
    We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial
    system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a
    gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black
    hole you can work out its mass against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;

    M=gd2/G

    We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms.

    The smallest black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as

    h/mc=2pi(h/mc) ~ of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius;

    1 / (2M − r) >

    – which leads to the solution of -

    R_s=2GM/c2;

    Very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these
    little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 1016 K, which is 200 GeV, or about 25 million times hotter than the sun.

    We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black
    hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).

    If our universe is indeed a black hole, you might imagine we exist in the inner horizon. In fact, our universe may as well be a black hole. Now, if one passes by the singularity, we might be able to move out of the inner horizon and pass through a second inner horizon, and then by finally passing another outer horizon, we will have entered another universe - but i had better be careful. There is a very good chance that this universe is made up mostly of antimatter. If i come into contact with antimatter, me and my ship will explode in a flash of light.

    I would like it known to my readers that Hawkings has changed his mind on the theory of Black Holes, as he no longer believes that it is possible for a spacetime traveler to jump into one and move into other universes… This was proposed because of a fundamental problem involving information. If information moved into a Black Hole, it would suggest that the information would be lost, but here lies the paradox, because information can never totally be lost. Thus instead, he now believes that information is ‘’mangled’’ and returned back into this universe through quantum tunneling. In fact, a more recent research into mathematics shows us that there actually needs not be any Black Holes at all! If any do exist, then they would have formed at the very beginning of time. But to keep things not too complicated, I will continue with the idea that it is all still possible, and this is based on one well-known fact: That is, that our mathematics could be formulating a lie, instead of the truth. Thus, as much as I like the idea that no one can travel into other universes, because I protest against the multiverse theory, I must admit still that we may have it all very wrong, because mathematics may be pointing to the wrong conclusions… Who knows but God? We will certainly never achieve any unification, as I believe. Such knowledge must be left to God alone > Thus, for the sake of it, let us imagine we have got it wrong, and that universal spacetime traveling is possible…
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    White Holes

    By the accepted theory of GR, antiparticles, are particles with an atomic clock going backwards; in other words, they move back in their own time frames... What has confused me about this, is that if that was the case, then how come we can trap a positron, and observe it? Shouldn't this, ''backward-through-time-travel'' particle, eventually dissipate into previous time frames in the past? Disappearing by moving bac into past spaces?

    This \\backward through// formula, describes the antiparticle or antipartner of everything. This even describes what is found at the end of a perilous journey into a black hole... You come to the time-reversed black hole.... the White Hole, which instead of sucking in matter, it spews matter out.

    I hypothesize no singularity.

    1. I do not believe God would allow a totally lawless region in spacetime (singularity)

    2. A wormhole would link to another universe, but with the boundaries now formaulated by Einstein, they look drastically insure to be correct.

    3. Instead, we can say the Big Bang is indeed correct, if we say it didn't have a shape like that of 1 or axiom 2, but rather spewed out energy much like a White Hole.

    If this is true, then there can only be one universe. The energy spewing from this Hypothetical White Hole (providing everything with matter in the universe) could not have come from a brother-sister universe.

    For this reason, i have jacked the theory of mine called ''The Big Flow.''

    Reason why, is because it would directly violate Hawking's Information Solution of QM. Therego, there can be only one answer, if the White Hole Theory is true. A universe which begins as a White Hole, and a universe that ends in a Black Hole. Not only this, but be allowing timelike-curves, we can make this process continue forever, if the end and the beginning oscillate into infinity, such as the cyclic prediction of QM.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    No comments?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    It's interesting. I like reading your posts. I understand maybe 20% of it.
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    It's nice to have a bit of criticism... It's rare round here nowadays... Cheers.
     
  9. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Pseudoscience.

    Sorry, try again.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    No, because a white hole has no singularity, but a realease in negative energy. Try again.
     
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    The only reason you give for disallowing singularities is because God hates it.

    Do you honestly call this science?
     
  12. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    BenThe Man is that really you? Or is it me? I've been blasphemed and wrongly accused of identity fraud recently so I thought I'd better check.

    When dealing with Reiku try *bollocks*.
     
  13. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    I thought the universe didn't have a physical center?
     
  14. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945

    *Reiku*
     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Snifter

    It does... because of the singularity... it is a point which exploads space, time energy and even matter into unimaginable proportions, because of it's negative qualities.

    Ben

    ''The only reason you give for disallowing singularities is because God hates it.

    Do you honestly call this science?''

    Actually, Fred A. Wolf tells the reader that

    ''There are many scientists who dislike the idea of an obsolete region of spacetime, because surely God wouldn't allow a totally lawless region of spacetime.''
     
  16. Fabio4all Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    For someone who has nothing really to say, you have quite a lot to say. I don't know about a lot of what you said, especially along the lines of when you were talking about space and time switching places? A black hole is just a spot of intense gravity, not a spot where absolutely nothing makes sense. Are you saying that you can traverse time, back and forth at will, but space would move in a steady fashion? That makes no sense to me, whatsoever.
     
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Actually a Blackhole isn't a spot of Intense gravity. Although some Astronomers have suggested that blackholes have been spotted here or there (technically Hawking radiation), there is still no irrefutable evidence that they actually exist.

    There are conceptional theories as to what would make up one, most go along the premise of a collapsed star creating a form of supercompression which is great enough to distort spacetime and suck light in (Which is where gravity is usually brought into it)

    Another variant involves a multiworlds scenario, where a mass from one universe is removed from that universe and moved to another universe. This causes an absence in the universe were it's lost and increases the mass of the universe where it now exists creating a collapse of universes. However again it's theoretical and requires universes to follow specific rules which currently are only achievable in theoretical models.

    There is a suggestion that space is "spaghetti-fied" through being distorted so that timespace is stretched and it's usually referred to as the "Event Horizon". There are a number of theoretical sketches and depictions of what would be seen from Relative perspectives of an "Event Horizon" however again theoretical because it wouldn't be something that could be physically observable.

    Absolute space is just that, pure empty unadulterated Space, the absence of anything.... oblivion.

    However space isn't Absolute, it usually contains a number of various radiological frequencies. There is the Cosmic background radiation that's usually referred to as being the echo of the big bang, however I've a postulated theory that suggests it's not actually an Echo but a Parallel of the Big Bang coinciding with the here and now.

    (The Theory goes like this:
    E=MC[sup]2[/sup] a calculation which a lot of people are familiar with pretty much state's that You can't move Mass faster than Light. Over the years there have been alot of scientists understand from the Theory of Relativity the perspectives of moving bodies, however some neglect the fundamentals of what would occur if you went as fast (or faster than light).

    The theory is that if a photon was to be stopped from moving and was done in a complete vacuum void of any background radiology, it would actually cease to exist and have Zero rest mass. It can also be suggested the same could be applied to atomic particles, which currently exist within an atomic "Event Horizon" where the actual space it orbits is distorted allowing the particles to move at speeds that don't break the speed of light but would mathematically and spacially defy the speed.

    I believe this is usually the base of Special Relativity theory and Field theory.

    Now with the understand that everything has no mass when at rest, it can be understood that if you were to relativistically travel at a fast enough speed, all those particles from a relative perspective would cease to move and therefore cease to have mass. (The universe from your perspective would cease to exist)

    This generates a paradox, because if you reach this point where no mass exists you can't accelerate or slow down based upon the friction of mass, since there is no mass to exist. So theoretically you are no longer moving at speed but just motionless in an infinite space devoid of anything but you.

    This is where speculation can be thrown, after all this space devoid of any energy or mass has no time or dimension (no distance) which means if multiple projects to accelerate energy to the point of existing in this space were to occur, they would actually all occupy the space and the resulting injections wouldn't necessarily be at distance from one another but actually intersect at the same point. totally disregarding where physically the injection had been triggered in the universe or what time (year).
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    We've never seen Hawking radiation. We've seen accretion disks, 'invisible' partners and active galactic centres.

    'Spaghetti-fied' means that the difference in force on your head and your feet increases as you get closer to the black hole and so you're stretched and lengthed out, like spaghetti.

    The event horizon doesn't come into it. Where 'spaghettification' occurs depends on the size and composition of the infalling object and the mass of the black hole.
    Yes, they can. Except the views of once you cross the EH.
    No, absolute space is the Newtonian view of space-time, where motion doesn't affect the passage of time and gravity isn't the curvature of the flat, Euclidean, metric.
    I hear alarm bells going off...
    No, it doesn't. It's a consequence of the invariance of light speed from relatively moving observers' perspectives. Another consequence of that is that you cannot go to light speed. A=>B and A=>C doesnt mean that B=>C.
    You'd believe wrong.
     
  19. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Alpha,
    Welcome to Pseudoscience your "corrections" are acceptable. However the jist of the whole still applies.

    I'm guessing when you say "I hear Alarm bells going off" it's probably a false positive on a woo-woo meter.

    It's a long tiresome story in regards to what I meant with my initial statement however it's on the basis that for Causality of Past and Future to have formality, basically where they are both tangible. For instance an atom forms in a part of the universe, if left to chaos there is a very large infeasible number of chances that it will reside somewhere in the universe than where it should reside if you observe it in the here and now as making up the chair you might sit on.

    This requires it's entire life to be interconnect relativistically for causality, however when it comes to that atom potentially being placed elsewhere in say a paradoxical experiment, it would require the universe has leeway from causality. This means the ability to re-write events, now this can only be possible at it's Base and obviously it would have to be written at it's Base to allow such paradoxical events.

    This is why I refer to the beginning of the universe as being a "Big Number Crunch" because that's what really goes on, the universe crunches the way it will eventually unfold, however imagine that crunch not as a program on a computer started at a point and allowed to finished when it finishes. But more like a computer on a parallel processing network, which run's like it means to finishes but is constantly handed new updates to it's algorithms from it's parallel network.
     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Since this is in psuedoscience, i guess i can act a bit psuedoscientific. So, why would god allow a totally lawless region of spacetime?

    What is a singularity? We describe a singular region as having negative qualities that blows time t, space x, y, z, and energy E into unimaginable proportions, into infinity ∞.

    But its also described as having an infinite curvature and zero-radius, so it has no structure. This is strange, because it means that mathematics becomes obsolete at a singularity, so we can't even describe what really happens, or describe any system that is fundamental to it, if it even has one.

    Is God what we call this singularity? Is it that God cannot be mathematically represented at t=0? I like to believe that a God runs the show, even if he isn't totally aware of the conditions he's created, for how could he be?

    For me, three words can sum God up rather well. He/She is omnipotent. God is also omniscient. He/She is also omnipresent. This sums God up for me... but, before we continue, let us agree on one more aspect. God knows everything. There should not be an atom in the universe He/She is not aware of... hence something similar found in the Bible, ''God knows the number of every strand of hair on your head.''
    However, having a scientific mind, i must admit, we must change our views of what God could be - we often take the bible far too seriously. For instance, to say God knows everything, is where the first inconsistency arises, when interpreting God into the theory of quantum physics.
    According to the uncertainty principle, to know everything there is about matter, like the location or path of any particle simultaneously is unknowable. To know such knowledge would be disastrous for our universe; it would cause extreme violence. The uncertainty principle states that some of the particles in our universe are potentially volatile. This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came.
    So, the question is, can an all-knowing God be correct? To know the location and path of 10^15 particles at any given time would destroy our universe - God would need to be ignorant of certain atomic behavior.
    The second paradox arises when one takes into consideration when measuring an energy of a system. To measure the energy of any system, you need to be separate of it. In Relativity, it indicates that there is no outside to our universe. All that counts, exists inside of it. In just this case, how can anyone measure the energy of the universe, when one needs to be outside to measure it? To do so, God would need to be able to measure Himself/Herself simultaneously; now this might not be a problem if He/She has omnipresence. Of course, there is always the argument that God made it all, thus He/She should know what and how much ingredients were used, just like your mums Sunday apple pie.
    The third paradox arises in the wave function. The only time anything real can come out of the wave function is when intelligence comes into the picture. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, then surely He/She would collapse the wave function for us? Indeed if God did, there would be nothing for us to collapse.

    'I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion
    are natural opposites. In fact, i believe there is a very close relationship
    between the two. Further, i think that science without religion is lame
    and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important
    and should work hand-in-hand.'
    Albert Einstein

    If God is a fundamental part of the universe, he simply cannot be located to a singular force or matter... but rather, it would make more sense God is creation in a whole, and would be the four forces making a single quantum force: Quantum gravity.

    I've heard theories before stating that God is gravity, and even the most respectable of scientists have come up with similar notions. Tipler is renown for his slightly psuedoscientific and complexicated theories concerning God.

    To remove the problem of the singularity and lawlessness is to state that somehow God is the singularity. Perhaps our infinitely limited knowledges about a singularity is what we call God, and God is certainly, or ''would'' certainly be a persona or entity which would be beyond human understanding.

    Hawking can mathematically remove singularities, using quantum mechanics, but removing them is kind of removing the very prediction of GR and SR. If it wasn't for GR, we wouldn't have the correct predictions for exotic objects like Black Holes.

    (1) - Hence the word imaginary, because there is no real specific region we can call the center because relativity brings boundaries stating that everything is self-contained with no boundary or real structure. However, if our universe began in a ground state, there wouldn't be a singularity, but instead a topological opening we would call a wormhole, connecting to another universe, or connecting to another time in this universe. It wouldn't have had a unique energy neither if it had begun from a single point of spacetime, or unique radius or energy...* If its in an ecited state at t=0, then there will be eventually a catastrophic depletion of energy that would inexorably quantum leap, possibly after something like anything from 30 billion years onwards. And we are told its not only energy that is spilled, but also information.

    *In fact, how can the universe even have an energy, because for it to have an energy, someone would need to be outside the universe to measure the energy, and since relativity explains there is no outside, this doesn't hold.
     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    (I just realized somthing)

    I said intelligence and the wave function together. Do not mistake this as consciousness and the collapse.
     
  22. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Also, there is a way to defy the uncertainty principle, and this might be how to solve the first inconsistency i have formulated... but because it's really good, and worth thinking about, i will post it in a new thread here.
     
  23. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    Has anyone come up with the theori that a black hole, given the right curcumstances will grow to a sun(star)?
    Again everything can be put in my equation:
    a(potential)+b(curcumstances)=1
    Is a black hole an acorn wating for the right curcumstances to grow into a star?
    If the curcumstances are not right, it will not fully develop.
    By this simple understanding, everything in our univers and everywhere follows more or less the same pattens no matter size.
    Therefor the best way to look at it is to look at it as a Fractal image, there is not an end... and there is not a begining.
    Even the big bang and the big crush follows the same principals.
    Big Bang is like the black hole, it is sucking in matter
    Big Crush is like the white hole spouing out matter.
    At some point the univers will start collapsing and when the big crush happens a new big bang will occour.
     

Share This Page