"Black Holes are the Engines that Create New Universes"

[Joseph B]

" ?Our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe.? In a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time, Nikodem Poplawski, a physicist at Indiana University, suggests that a small change to the theory of gravity implies that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from the black hole in which it was born.

Poplawski says that the idea that black holes are the cosmic mothers of new universes is a natural consequence of a simple new assumption about the nature of spacetime. Poplawski points out that the standard derivation of general relativity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. However there is another version of the theory, called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity, which does.

This theory predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.

Astrophysicists have long known that our Universe is so big that it could not have reached its current size given the rate of expansion we see now. Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the period known as inflation.

Poplawski's approach immediately solves the inflation problem, saying that torsion caused this rapid inflation, which means the Universe as we see it today can be explained by a single theory of gravity without any additional assumptions about inflation.

Another important corollary of Poplawski's approach is that it makes it possible for universes to be born inside the event horizons of certain kinds of black holes where torsion prevents the formation of a singularity but allows energy density to build up, which leads to the creation of particles on a massive scale via pair production, followed by the expansion of the new universe. "Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon's formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time," says Poplawski. For this reason, he emphasizes, the new universe is a separate branch of space time and evolves accordingly.

Poplawski's theory also suggests an solution to why time seems to flow in one direction but not in the other, even though the laws of physics are time symmetric.

Poplawski says the origin of the arrow of time comes from the asymmetry of the flow of matter into the black hole from the mother Universe. "The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon," he says. Translated, this means that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from its source. "Daughter universes," he says, "may inherit other properties from their mothers," implying that it may be possible to detect these properties, providing an experimental falsifiable proof of his idea. "

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/new-theory-black-holes-give-birth-to-new-universes-todays-most-popular.html

[Farstrider]

Utterly fascinating stuff! Seriously, this stuff amazes me, the only thing that I do not enjoy about these hypotheses is that it shows how inconsequential and small we (Humans) actually are! :(

[Sergee]

I love all the theories behind earth... :)

[Joseph B]

This theory just seems.. So much more believable than the Big Bang, because it explains various things at the same time: 1) Where black hole stuff goes 2) Inflation 3) And even time (no pun intended), it just feels right.. Ya know?

[Solid Knight]

Now find the white hole to prove it.

[Dotdot]

Interesting. Must learn more about blackholes. Its a nice idea but until we have a way of seeing whats going on inside black holes its pure speculation.

I take it the expansion of our universe is being fuelled by the matter sucked into the blackhole i.e Hydrogen and for formation of Suns etc.

But then ofc are the blackholes we witness holes within holes or is there an almost wormhole like idea where they intersect thru universes?

The time thing is a nice explanation of it as until now I kinda thought our understanding was that while it was possible for backwards within laws of physics, it was inherint for evolution. and indeed for the life cycle of high entropy objects.

i.e time can flow forward and back and sand stays as sand, but not on something like forward and backwards flow of living organisms

[Farstrider]

This theory just seems.. So much more believable than the Big Bang, because it explains various things at the same time: 1) Where black hole stuff goes 2) Inflation 3) And even time (no pun intended), it just feels right.. Ya know?

You obviously did not read the article properly!

Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the period known as inflation.

Also I doubt that this is a qualified "Theory" more likely just an hypothesis. There are two very distinct differences to what in science describes a "Theory" and the theory that you I have about how something works! :whistle:

[Dotdot]

It doesnt really explain where matter goes. Rather how its passed about. It would also be interesting if said matter was continually being filtered down thru a system of blackholes. I.e what were feedin on is feedin our black holes and so forth.

Tho if say were a daughter in this, then any blackholes within our universe would also be daughters? and therefore also have an arrow of time inherant to ours? So at which point are blackholes with a backwards arrow existing?

[Julius Caro]

Walternate is coming

:alien: :alien:

You obviously did not read the article properly!

Also I doubt that this is a qualified "Theory" more likely just an hypothesis. There are two very distinct differences to what in science describes a "Theory" and the theory that you I have about how something works! :whistle:

Wikipedia calls it theory. And so does CBS

[Paul Ferson Veteran]

Utterly fascinating stuff! Seriously, this stuff amazes me, the only thing that I do not enjoy about these hypotheses is that it shows how inconsequential and small we (Humans) actually are! :(

If you really want that feeling driven home, look up VY Canis Majoris. If nothing else drives that feeling home I can guarantee any of the videos or images people have created to emphasise Canis Majoris will.

[Joseph B]

If you really want that feeling driven home, look up VY Canis Majoris. If nothing else drives that feeling home I can guarantee any of the videos or images people have created to emphasise Canis Majoris will.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

[...] "The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon," [...]

I've seen a lot of science fiction movies/TV shows and that is way over my head. I can't even imagine it. :dontgetit:

[Bryan R.]

If you really want that feeling driven home, look up VY Canis Majoris. If nothing else drives that feeling home I can guarantee any of the videos or images people have created to emphasise Canis Majoris will.

I've read about and know the star well, but I did another search for fun and found this:

When VY Canis Majoris dies, it will die as a core-collapse supernova or even a hyper-nova depending on it's mass and composition. It's huge size does not necessarily mean it will explode as a hyper-nova and give rise to a gamma ray burst when some or all of the star becomes a black hole. Even so, it's much more likely to explode as a core-collapse supernova that will produce a neutron star or a black hole depending on what happens when it's core is converted into iron. When that happens, the outer layers will initially be ejected back into space at speeds of 5,000 miles per second or more, and the wreckage will outshine the entire galaxy for weeks or months. If VY Canis Majoris had any planets, they would be at the minimum ejected into space due to the sudden loss of 90 percent or more of the star's mass back to space. Their atmospheres and surface water if present would be flash boiled away into space, and likely their surfaces would melt from being hit with billions of times more energy than they received before. It's indeed possible they would simply be vaporized in the explosion. If there are any life bearing planets within a few light years of VY Canis Majoris when it blows, all life would be destroyed. Any inhabited planets within 30 or 50 light years of the explosion will either be sterilized or suffer severe mass extinctions due to the massive blast of gamma and x-rays disrupting the ozone layer. Dangerous, even deadly doses of radiation will kill or injure any complex, multi-cellular life forms but single cell microbes can withstand radiation fields that would instantly kill humans and most other higher forms of life. Star systems farther away would be exposed to much more ionizing radiation and cosmic rays, which would induce mutations and leave traces in the soil, ice sheets and oceans, but would not trigger wide spread die offs of species wholesale. From several hundred light years away, VY Canis Majoris' demise would be no threat to a habitable planet, but a bonanza for astronomers interested in the lives and deaths of stars and how they made our own existence possible. If however, VY Canis Majoris is massive enough and has the right composition to explode as a hyper-nova, the resulting gamma ray burst will destroy life on planets caught in the jets spat out by the newly born black hole thousands of light years away. These jets form along the doomed star's axis of rotation, and are highly focused like laser beams. If an inhabited planet is not in the way, it would survive unharmed unless it was in close proximity to the supernova. A planet or life on that planet caught in the jet is doomed. Planets within a 100 light years would melt or vaporize from the jet's onslaught, which are composed of high energy plasma moving at nearly the speed of light.They are nature's ultimate death ray, much like the Death Star out of the Star Wars movies

Source

I don't know how credible the guy is, but it's fascinating.

[Farstrider]

Walternate is coming

:alien: :alien:

Wikipedia calls it theory. And so does CBS

Not trying to get into an argument here but what I get from the article is this:

In a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time, Nikodem Poplawski, a physicist at Indiana University, suggests that a small change to the theory of gravity implies that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from the black hole in which it was born.

The Theory Of Gravity is not his, we all know who's theory this is and what transpired subsequent to newer discoveries regarding this!

Poplawski points out that the standard derivation of general relativity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. However there is another version of the theory, called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity, which does.

This theory [Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity] predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.

All I am saying is that he has used "tried and tested theories" to expound his theory, if you get my drift! Has his paper and workings been recognized by the scientific community as an accepted "Theory"? Perhaps you can point this out to me if I have missed something. :) Thanks.

[DigitalE]

So.. I guess according to this theory we (and our universe, and the universe containing the black hole that our universe is inside, and so on..) would have to be infinitesimally small. It's not very logical if you ask me.

[Paul Ferson Veteran]

I've read about and know the star well, but I did another search for fun and found this:

I don't know how credible the guy is, but it's fascinating.

Yeah, that really is fascinating! I've never seen any information like that before, but wow. It's amazing to think we're living beside a bomb so big it's completely impossible to comprehend the size of. Traveling at 900 kilometers per hour without ever slowing or ceasing... and taking over one thousand years to go around the planet. That is downright insane to consider. Generation upon generation of a family would have to live aboard the craft, and die aboard it. Let's hope it never explodes because even if that guy is right he might have chosen not to outline what would happen to earth.

I find planets a source of extreme fascination - did anyone else notice that Google has added a Planets theme to Gmail? This came as a very pleasant surprise to me to find it only minutes after finding this thread.

[shakey]

So.. I guess according to this theory we (and our universe, and the universe containing the black hole that our universe is inside, and so on..) would have to be infinitesimally small. It's not very logical if you ask me.

size is relative to what you have to measure it up to. What could be huge to us, is very small to another. Judging a theory based off of a very lose definition such as "size" is not the best way to go about this....

[guru]

nvm,, shakey's covered it..

[Mike Frett]

Some Scientist just finished watching Men in Black? :rolleyes:

[Nagisan]

size is relative to what you have to measure it up to. What could be huge to us, is very small to another. Judging a theory based off of a very lose definition such as "size" is not the best way to go about this....

Agreed....I mean subatomic particles are the smallest thing we have discovered, but given that the size of the universe is for all intents and purposes infinite, you must also assume that particles can be infinitely smaller. What we see as a proton or electron, could essentially be its own universe operating just like ours on a much (relatively) smaller scale. As you mention, size is purely relative. Given this new theory, I feel its entirely possible that a black hole within our universe could be its own universe with potential for living creatures that would be so tiny compared to us that we wouldn't be able to identify them or even see them as a separate entity. And with that being said, our entire universe could simply be a black hole within another much larger universe than our own (which would only support that the universe is infinite......if our universe was simply 1 black hole, if we could get outside of it we would simply be in more space of another larger universe)

[Joseph B]

Agreed....I mean atomic particles are the smallest thing we have discovered, but given that the size of the universe is for all intents and purposes infinite, you must also assume that particles can be infinitely smaller. What we see as a proton or electron, could essentially be its own universe operating just like ours on a much (relatively) smaller scale. As you mention, size is purely relative. Given this new theory, I feel its entirely possible that a black hole within our universe could be its own universe with potential for living creatures that would be so tiny compared to us that we wouldn't be able to identify them or even see them as a separate entity. And with that being said, our entire universe could simply be a black hole within another much larger universe than our own (which would only support that the universe is infinite......if our universe was simply 1 black hole, if we could get outside of it we would simply be in more space of another larger universe)

All of this just makes me wonder: What are those supermassive black holes in the centers of most galaxies doing then? Are they too in the process of creating daughter universes? It all quite honestly makes my head hurt.

[Zain Adeel]

it sure is confusing...

but we are in a matrix or not :p

i know one thing for sure..

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. . .

this one thing is exactly accurate in view of my religion.. and i have firm belief this is why God is EVER LIVING..

becoz something has to be forever..

what has no beginning has no end.. if anything had a beginning something before it must be present!!.. but it has to end somewhere.. there will be a wall somewhere.. somewhere something will be FOREVER.. and i cant even comprehend how it might be becoz its so out of our heads.. becoz we live in time.. we grow old and die.. we see stars which grow old and die.. so imagining something to be forever.. is too much .. my head hurts 2.. and ill be really lucky if somebody can tell me the accurate beginning of this universe..

God maybe??

[SkyyPunk Veteran]

so what came first? the universe that created the first black hole or the black hole that created the first universe...hmm :p

[ikomrad]

There is a difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory. One is an unproven explanation based upon assumptions and general knowledge, the other has been thoroughly vetted by the scientific community but isn't provable beyond any doubt. However, its so well supported it can be treated as fact in most cases.

[Japlabot]

It's on Orion's belt!