Thread: We live in a giant Black Hole...

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Nothing. Nada.Zilch. But that's the kind of nonsense that you hear once and awhile. It's the same type of "science" performed by Percival Lowell.

What's ironic is that the article explains that indeed scientists have trouble explaining our Big Bang. Seems awkward and far fetched even to them. So, what's the clear and obvious answer to it? A black hole in a parallel universe created our universe. Ah, right. Of course!

There are two goals of Physics. One is to provide some practical methods to measure our physical worlds, meaning that we will create a model that obeys specific laws and the other is to provide with a nice description/wording about the world. Like "The sun is a big ball, with a diameter...". You know what a ball is so you can understand more or less what the sun is. Space doesn't necessarily have any dimension, it is just space. The same is time. You can model it and measure it any way you want to.
So if I was to describe space to somebody I would use a 3D model. If I wanted to measure distance, maybe not.

Visualizing and measuring are not the same thing

Originally Posted by MK27

I think the Schwarzschild wormholes are distinct from the concept of a/the universe being spawned by (and in that sense "within") a black hole in another universe. The "entry point" into our universe would just be the whole thing (bizarre abstract spacial relation), and there would be no corresponding exit point -- once within the universe, it is effectively infinite, as if contained by an event horizon.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here?
It almost sounds like another idea I came up with, which is that black holes are our universe and if you cross the event horizon of a black hole, you'd end up on the outer rim of our universe (through some kind of strange folding of 4 dimensional space).

Maybe we should create another message board called "General Relativity Discussions"?

Originally Posted by jimtuv

The problem in all of this is that if your premise is not true then all the conclusions based upon that premise are also invalid. One sign of a bad premise is a constantly changing conclusion. Maybe they need to completely revisit the initial premise (big bang) and find other plausible explanations for their observations. I think none of this will ever make sense until a new unified theory integrates both quantum mechanics classical mechanics under one theorem.

There are already some theories, like the string theory, which is a unified theory, thought I don't think it is acceptable by all scientists. But having a unified theory is the way to go in order to make sense. I don't know though if we have the capability to set some objective criteria that will define the truth. In physics you have to rely to some specific experiments who will define which theory is correct and which is not. The problem, thus, is that you might not be able to define feasible experiment to integrate with things like dark energy or worm holes etc etc. If theories are not based on certain acceptable experiments that will back them up, they should (unfortunately) remain just theories.

Personally, I don't consider big bang and/or evolution as scientific truths. You cannot find a way to prove them, because you cannot recreate the process. Partially they can be truth, for example you can experiment with evolution on bees. But since they cannot prove that that is how the world was created/evolved, they should always just stand as theories. If we could witness the phenomenon happening again, then yes, they could be considered scientific truths.

All of the above are useless for anybody that has studied physics or is a scientist or anything similar. They are well informed and can decide for themselves what is true and what is not. But it is important for the education of the rest of the people. Should you teach big bang theory in schools? Do you present it as the truth? In my biology book it was stated that we have some "life-cells" which are unique cells in our brain that forms our free will. That is a valid way to explain something, but it is certainly not a scientific truth. Not even close. The same goes for historical truths. You have to separate truths from theories. You cannot put everything on the same scale.

Take global warming as another example. I was taught that it was a valid theory. When I came in the US and heard conservative-type people disputing it I though they were extreme. How can they dispute a well accepted scientific truth? But after researching about it and thinking about it more seriously, I understood that it is not that clear. So that there "might" be global warming (caused by humans) is more likely to the truth. I would prefer if it was presented that way in schools and from the media as well, so the average person gets a more clear idea how true is a theory. Nobody disputes gravity, you cannot put gravity and global warming or big bang theory on the same scale.

You can't be 100% certain about anything, ever.
I can't even be 100% certain that I'm alive -- for all I know, I could just be a computer simulation.

You know... Now I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to cross the event horizon at all.
If space/time is completely curved around the black hole, then the space/time outside the black hole should also be curved around the black hole, leaving no contact between the space/time inside the black hole with the space/time outside the black hole. So if you flew directly at the black hole, you'd be deflected around the event horizon instead of going through it.
Where's Stephen Hawking when you need him?

Originally Posted by cpjust

You know... Now I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to cross the event horizon at all.

"You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave!"