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

Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

I read this in a 18 year old book about Stephen Hawking (which I never got around to reading until just now); I guess the people at National Geographic are just as behind on their reading as me.

If I remember correctly, some theories also suggest it's possible for matter/energy to escape from black holes at their poles as a stream; so maybe it's possible to escape from our universe too?

First thing I thought reading the opening paragraph is that would explain the big bang maybe? It was a consequence of the formation of the black hole "inside of which" our universe exists.

[edit] see, great minds think alike (~10th paragraph):

If our universe was birthed by a white hole [sic?] instead of a singularity, Poplawski said, "it would solve this problem of black hole singularities and also the big bang singularity."

I think "white hole" is a typo, it should be "worm hole".

Anyone remember the classic Disney film?

I actually thought all of this up this morning and was going to write the whole theory out on this forum a minute ago before I saw this post... I must be a genius, too.

Originally Posted by MK27

I think "white hole" is a typo, it should be "worm hole".

You skimmed, apparently. "White Hole" is defined, in quotes, at the beginning of the article as the other side of a black hole. Get it? White hole... black hole... The idea being that it goes in one and comes out the other rather than simply just disappearing or collapsing into a super-condensed piece of matter if Einstein is correct. You aren't wrong though, as the way it is described would make the black hole and the white hole two ends of what is commonly described as a worm hole.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

I actually thought all of this up this morning and was going to write the whole theory out on this forum a minute ago before I saw this post... I must be a genius, too.

That did happen to me on acid a couple of times, probably I am just flashing back now.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

I actually thought all of this up this morning and was going to write the whole theory out on this forum a minute ago before I saw this post... I must be a genius, too.

Yeah, I actually thought up this theory a while ago as well.

But then again, I also thought up a theory that anti-matter travels not in time but in anti-time, which would have the opposite vector of time. Of course, I don't actually believe the theory myself, although after some googling when I thought it up (in high school, actually), I found out that some people actually do believe it and thought of it before.

The trick is thinking of something new. Like the guy that thought up the theory that atoms are really intelligent and fairly small alien spaceships, which themselves are made up by tiny aliens themselves, and so on...


Edit: seriously, though, I haven't read the article yet, but couldn't this somehow explain the absence of anti-matters? That it is easier for anti-matter to escape the black hole. If anything can...
But a black hole inside our universe would consist out of even tinier particles. Would it be possible of any bigger structures, like intelligent life, be made of particles small enough to fit a black hole in our universe? Then definitely quarks couldn't be the smallest particles that exist, not even close...

Originally Posted by EVOEx

Yeah, I actually thought up this theory a while ago as well.

But then again, I also thought up a theory that anti-matter travels not in time but in anti-time, which would have the opposite vector of time. Of course, I don't actually believe the theory myself, although after some googling when I thought it up (in high school, actually), I found out that some people actually do believe it and thought of it before.

I was ROTFL when I learned Sebastiani had also thought of this one:

Originally Posted by MK27

I had another philosophy descended from the "mass is energy" one whereby light didn't have any speed at all and there was no such thing as empty space, there was just light as a medium permitting spacial and temporal (hence the "speed") relations. E=MC^2 would represent a logical barrier in the same way that it already does, or that three dimensions represented a logical barrier. And atomic particles are nodes, of course.

Quantum teleportation across 10 miles -- Sebastiani's reply

Mebbe this means quantum physics ain't so baffling for us laypeople on a macro level. Or else it is. Is there a macro level to quantum physics?

Originally Posted by Yarin

What in the world even suggests, even a little bit, that whole universes are inside/through black holes?

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!

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 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.

Originally Posted by Yarin

So let me get this straight. Black hole singularities, are not just condensed mass and energy, nor are they "infinitely dense and infinitely hot", but are portals to other worlds?

And as evidence for this, it's shown that black holes spit stuff back out, and rotates just as our universe seems to?
When you put water through a pipe, the water going in, and coming out are of the same universe. A merry go round rotates too, I don't know of any merry go rounds that have universes inside of them.

What in the world even suggests, even a little bit, that whole universes are inside/through black holes?
Am I missing something?

Most merry go rounds don't bend space/time completely around themselves until they are completely cut off from the rest of the universe and where not even light can escape from them.
That's the similarity between black holes & our universe. If our universe has a boundary which we can't cross, it's like the event horizon of a black hole. No matter how fast you travel away from a black hole, you can't escape because space/time is bent around it and as you move away, you follow the curved space which is now in a sphere, so you can't get out.

Originally Posted by cpjust

No matter how fast you travel away from a black hole, you can't escape because space/time is bent around it and as you move away, you follow the curved space which is now in a sphere, so you can't get out.

But you wouldn't perceive it as a sphere. Just you would get an intense sensation of deja vu every so often.

Originally Posted by Yarin

As far as I was aware, though, a black hole's event horizon isn't an entrance into a 'spacetime sphere', simply spacetime that's become so 'steep' that even light can't go 'up' and out of it.

So there is no reason to believe there is not such a thing as a wormhole. Of course, that is a terrible reason to claim something (just because it could be), but I seem to recall from Hawking's "Brief History" that he and other leading physicists do give some credence to the nitty gritty of the idea.

Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It looks like that "white hole" is not a typo, altho they were not explained in the original article.