It Really is "Turtles all the Way Down".

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sometime in the my dim distant past, before the days of the Internet when paper still ruled, I remember reading an article in ISTR a science fiction magazine that claimed the the Universe was a Black Hole because it was of the right density to be one -- the size of a black hole been dependent on its mass and all that.

Then today I read:

Every black hole contains a new universe

By Nikodem Poplawski ++ Published May 17, 2012 ++ Inside Science News Service

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.Is this TOE? Does it really link quantum-sized world with the Cosmos?

Double :cool:

Read the rest at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/17/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/?intcmp=obinsite

[geni]

People were playing with this back in the 90s. On the basis that your source is fox news rather than any popular science book written in the last 20 years I'm kinda worried.

[not_so_new]

People were playing with this back in the 90s. On the basis that your source is fox news rather than any popular science book written in the last 20 years I'm kinda worried.

Maybe this will help with the legitimacy of the source?

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

:D

I read this last week when it came out. Pretty interesting but I don't think it's really a new idea.

[geni]

Maybe this will help with the legitimacy of the source?

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

:D

"Ads by Google

Online psychic readings - Get your accurate psychic reading Phone today: 10 mins only £2.90 - www.theCircle.com/online"

I hate science by press release.

[Nowhere Man]

Sometime in the my dim distant past, before the days of the Internet when paper still ruled, I remember reading an article in ISTR a science fiction magazine that claimed the the Universe was a Black Hole because it was of the right density to be one -- the size of a black hole been dependent on its mass and all that.
Isaac Asimov's The Collapsing Universe (1977, and probably quite out of date by now) ends with such a speculation.

Fred

[MG1962]

Recent observational evidence suggesting the universe is in fact accelerating in its expansion might just put the black hole theory back in the game

[Orphia Nay]

So, if the universe is in a black hole, what do we call the thing that has all the black holes with universes in them?

[Halfcentaur]

So, if the universe is in a black hole, what do we call the thing that has all the black holes with universes in them?

The Turtle.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So, if the universe is in a black hole, what do we call the thing that has all the black holes with universes in them?

It probably loops around in an infinite regression such that no universe is not inside another one. Still looking for the First Cause though. :cool:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Isaac Asimov's The Collapsing Universe (1977, and probably quite out of date by now) ends with such a speculation.

Fred

Thanks Fred. That's a good possibility.

But I don't remember reading this book and quick Google does not show it based on any of his columns.

:th:

[LarianLeQuella]

Still looking for the First Cause though. :cool:

Sorry, that was me. Had a really big burrito and, well, refried beans do that to most anyone...

http://www.sixthsphere.com/forum/images/smilies/6S_479.gif

[Halfcentaur]

What would this mean for cosmic drift and the universe flying apart into a cold death? Would there be any indication of scale or size in terms we can relate to?

As a kid I used to be fascinated with the idea that there were infinitely regressing and progressing universes both inside and outside of each other, a never ending babushka/matryoshka doll in both directions.

[Halfcentaur]

So, if the universe is in a black hole, what do we call the thing that has all the black holes with universes in them?

The babushka-verse©?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/evilknick/babuska.jpg

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sorry, that was me. Had a really big burrito and, well, refried beans do that to most anyone...

http://www.sixthsphere.com/forum/images/smilies/6S_479.gif

Some religions have their God breathing life into the Universe. Your approach seems to just as valid. :cool:

[Hecubas]

A fractal universe... just the thought made my stomach churn from that old existential feeling. :boxedin:

[Halfcentaur]

A fractal universe... just the thought made my stomach churn from that old existential feeling. :boxedin:

There seems to be nowhere you can go to get away from these fractals. Branching bastards!

[derchin]

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...

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

[Kid Eager]

Intriguing article. I know nowhere near enough to determine whether it's credible though...

[The Man]

Wait, so every black hole in our universe has another universe inside it and our universe is inside a black hole of some other universe that is inside a black hole of some other universe that is inside a black hole of some other universe that is inside a black hole of some other universe that is inside a black hole of some other universe that is inside a…..

So its black holes all the way down now instead of turtles (heck at least the turtles were kind of a cute image).


It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity.

Ah, so it hasn’t apparently remedied that major problem of the “current theory of gravity and cosmology”. Much like the cart and the horse it seems they are putting the black hole before the universe (well inside another universe with a black hole before that inside another universe with a black hole…) and thinking they might be winning the race before even jumping that first big hurdle (combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity). Heck them zany Physicists need something to do anyway so why not just come up with ‘black holes all the way down’ and let the rest of them zany Physicists figure out how it fundamentally works.

[gnome]

Nah, not an infinite regression. Just three. The black holes inside the black holes inside the black holes don't have anything in them.

[derchin]

Nah, not an infinite regression. Just three. The black holes inside the black holes inside the black holes don't have anything in them.

How so?

[The Man]

Nah, not an infinite regression. Just three. The black holes inside the black holes inside the black holes don't have anything in them.

Why three? Just because that’s how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Pops#Commercials) (you know the owl was the wisest). Without some special pleading those last terminal layers (nothing inside the black hole below and no black hole around the universe above) are going to need some real fundamental differences in the quantum gravity that explains their formation. Oops there's that big first hurdle again.

[gnome]

It is absolutely special pleading, in that I made it up entirely.

[Halfcentaur]

This thread already existed earlier today and last evening or I have somehow skipped through a sister black hole on my way back from the bat'leth tournament. Which one of you is my wife again?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=237347

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This thread already existed earlier today and last evening or I have somehow skipped through a sister black hole on my way back from the bat'leth tournament. Which one of you is my wife again?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=237347

I have requested they be merged.

Gord

[derchin]

This thread already existed earlier today and last evening or I have somehow skipped through a sister black hole on my way back from the bat'leth tournament. Which one of you is my wife again?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=237347

Oh wow...

:(

[Jeff Corey]

"I have requested they be merged.

Gord "

Then Spock will get to meet Evil Spock With A Beard and go to Quark's for a few Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters. Rowdy Starship Troopers start a brawl and are calmed down by Jame Retief in a diplomatic fashion. John Carter and his trusty Thoat, Freddy, are asking if Thuvia is still tending bar during Friday Happy Week.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I have requested they be merged.

Gord "

Then Spock will get to meet Evil Spock With A Beard and go to Quark's for a few Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters. Rowdy Starship Troopers start a brawl and are calmed down by Jame Retief in a diplomatic fashion. John Carter and his trusty Thoat, Freddy, are asking if Thuvia is still tending bar during Friday Happy Week.

Hang on a sec while I get out my sonic screwdriver. :cool:

[Molinaro]

Pretty sure I've seen Sol shoot down this idea with a very simple argument based on observations which contradict the possibility.

[Jeff Corey]

How was that falsified?
Which prediction?
Which observation?

[boooeee]

I didn't know High Times had a science column.

[The Man]

I didn't know High Times had a science column.

Well, like Playboy, don't just look at the pictures and you just might find some science (probably more in High Times than Playboy though).

[Duffy Moon]

I didn't know High Times had a science column.

Like, what if the universe, man, was like one of an infinite number and they were inside black holes, but inside each other too.

And what if, it stopped expanding and collapsed and.........


...dude, what was I just talking about?

[The Man]

I don't know dude but that was like so excrementally phantasmagorically deep. You should like do that thing where you know you like write stuff down and then people like read it. Dude that would be so assume. You could bifurcate the disestablishment and recoflabulate it to a more incohesive, sorry, dicocohesive embellishment. You know what I'm saying!! Ok, who's got the liter?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Isaac Asimov's The Collapsing Universe (1977, and probably quite out of date by now) ends with such a speculation.

Fred


Didn't Hawkings' 1993 book "Black Holes and The Baby Universes" deal with this as well?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes_and_Baby_Universes_and_Other_Essays

[Toontown]

Baby universes don't need black holes to hide in. They can be spawned by random quantum fluctuations, breaking off from the underlying Void into their own private spacetimes.

The black hole speculation requires that a universe must already exist, to make the black holes the baby ones are born in. This is madness. How did the first one come about? If you imagine an infinite regression, then how did the entire infinite regression come about? What kind of hole was IT born in?

Therein lies madness, and then religion.

[Cuddles]

I hate science by press release.

How about science by science (http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/publications.html). Just because this article is the first you've heard of it doesn't mean the same is true for everyone else. This is absolutely real science. It may well be wrong, but that's a very different matter.

It probably loops around in an infinite regression such that no universe is not inside another one. Still looking for the First Cause though.

Indeed. I doubt we'll ever get an answer that will settle that part. Either you need to get something from nothing, or it's infinite turtles. Even if we manage to come up with what seems to be a definitive answer, it's just not going to satisfy most people since neither of those options really seem to make sense from a human-scale perspective.

[Toontown]

Indeed. I doubt we'll ever get an answer that will settle that part. Either you need to get something from nothing, or it's infinite turtles. Even if we manage to come up with what seems to be a definitive answer, it's just not going to satisfy most people since neither of those options really seem to make sense from a human-scale perspective.

We don't need to get something from nothing if 'nothing' is a bogus concept to begin with. All that's really required is a fundamental, timeless Void (the closest possible 'something' to the contradictory nothingness), and you've got your bottom turtle. Then all you need is quantum mechanics, which apparently thrives in a Void. Both Void and mechanics were noticed decades ago, and have been successfully toyed with since.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Black holes are finite in size, they have event horizons and at least from the outside would appear to have a middle. Also, don't they collapse inward, not expand outward?

[The author of this post admits having not yet read the articles and to only skimming the other thread posts. :p]

[Toontown]

Black holes are finite in size, they have event horizons and at least from the outside would appear to have a middle. Also, don't they collapse inward, not expand outward?

[The author of this post admits having not yet read the articles and to only skimming the other thread posts. :p]

The event horizon of a black hole does expand as the black hole consumes mass and becomes more massive. But the contents of the hole, the mass, is squinched down to a point.

They're hard-pulling bastards, but I very seriously doubt they're universes.

[Halfcentaur]

My AI told me it's harder to think there could ever have been nothing than to think there needed to be a first cause and it's easier to do what it tells me to do.

[Halfcentaur]

Weird, I came in clicking one thread title and came out of another thread.

[Toontown]

My AI told me it's harder to think there could ever have been nothing than to think there needed to be a first cause and it's easier to do what it tells me to do.

If that's supposed to be an argument, it is the weakest argument ever conceived. Besides being utterly false. It's far easier to think everything was caused by something else, except, of course, the First Cause, which couldn't have been caused by anything else. So you end up in the same place by a more circuitous route.

There ain't no nothing. Never was.

[Halfcentaur]

If that's supposed to be an argument, it is the weakest argument ever conceived. Besides being utterly false. It's far easier to think everything was caused by something else, except, of course, the First Cause, which couldn't have been caused by anything else. So you end up in the same place by a more circuitous route.

There ain't no nothing. Never was.It's a good thing it's not an argument then.

[gerdbonk]

I once sneezed while inhaling and now I was back where I am then.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Weird, I came in clicking one thread title and came out of another thread.
I see what you did there. :)

[Psi Baba]

We all need to yell "WE ARE HERE!" simultaneously to see if we can get the attention of the next universe out.

[Toontown]

It's a good thing it's not an argument then.

Hard to tell what anything is around here. Wierd thread. Like a black hole. Go in one end, come out the other, and you're back where you started. But the posts don't come out. Once a post goes in, it never comes out. I could probably break that law though. I could probably put a post in that wouldn't stay in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just thought of something [remember SG's knowledge of this stuff is very limited]. It reminds of of the gap gods or the people who want QM to explain ESP or whatever woo they believe fits. We don't understand what is going on inside a black hole. I know, let's attribute everything we don't know about the Big Bang to the things we don't know about black holes.

Maybe someone can tell me why there is any more to this hypothesis than that.

[BenBurch]

We all need to yell "WE ARE HERE!" simultaneously to see if we can get the attention of the next universe out.

Oh, we can hear you, but usually are too busy. ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I just thought of something [remember SG's knowledge of this stuff is very limited]. It reminds of of the gap gods or the people who want QM to explain ESP or whatever woo they believe fits. We don't understand what is going on inside a black hole. I know, let's attribute everything we don't know about the Big Bang to the things we don't know about black holes.

Maybe someone can tell me why there is any more to this hypothesis than that.

Try reading the comments following the article at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

You will be no wiser (certainly I was not :() but it appears to be a topic for discussion. :boggled:

[Skeptic Ginger]

The comments are consistent with my initial perception.

[Cuddles]

All that's really required is a fundamental, timeless Void

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Then all you need is quantum mechanics, which apparently thrives in a Void.

Are you confusing vacuum with your oddly capitalised "void"? Vacuum is very much something and a part of this universe, and quantum mechanics is simply a description of how this universe works (or at least the best we've managed so far). None of that helps in the slightest if you're trying to figure out what might have happened before either the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed, or even simply if anything could have happened or if "before" even makes sense as a concept.

Black holes are finite in size

The universe may well be finite in size. Finite and unbounded, as mentioned in the article, but still finite.

they have event horizons

The event horizon describes the surface which is impossible to cross from inside to out. Ever tried to cross to the outside of the universe?

and at least from the outside would appear to have a middle.

Well, that's part of the weirdness of black holes. Not only do size and time get stretched and squeezed around in regions of high gravity, they can get swapped completely. From the outside, the event horizon of a black hole has a certain spatial position and the centre would be described as simply the spatial centre of the spherical horizon (sticking with simple spherical black holes for now, but the principle would be the same for more complex ones). But from the inside, the event horizon is in the past and the "centre" is in the future. In fact, it turns out to be almost exactly the same as saying the big bang was in the past. From "outside" the universe (if such a thing is actually possible), there could well be a centre of the universe, it's just what would be considered the centre from the outside looks to us as though it's somewhere in the past or future instead. Just like a black hole.

Also, don't they collapse inward, not expand outward?

Not sure what you mean by "collapse" here. During formation of a black hole, yes, matter will collapse down until it lies inside the event horizon. After that point we can't really say what happens to it, although there are various probably unfalsifiable theories (since we can't actually go in and check). Nothing can escape the event horizon, but from the outside it will look essentially the same if it's all compressed to a zero dimensional point or if it's all spread out over the entire volume. All we can see is the gravitational effects, and Gauss's law means those will be the same whatever the mass inside is doing.

However, if you mean they shrink after formation rather than expanding, that depends entirely on the balance between the rate matter falls in and the rate of evaporation by Hawking radiation. Since the rate of evaporation depends inversely on size, black holes larger than a certain size will tend to grow rather than shrink. In terms of universes, that would simply mean that some are small and only last a very short time, while others continue expanding virtually forever.

But the contents of the hole, the mass, is squinched down to a point.

Maybe. Or maybe not. It's a common mistake to assume that a mathematical singularity means that there must be an actual physical singularity. Most of the time it just means the maths we're using simply can't accurately describe what's going on. For example, the big bang theory doesn't say that the universe started out at an infinitely dense, zero dimensional singularity, although it's often incorrectly described as such. What it actually says is that the universe started out in an incredibly small, hot and rapidly expanding state. The singularity before that simply indicates that our understanding of the physics involved is broken and most of the research in the field is trying to come up with a theory that doesn't involve a singularity at all, rather than the pop science view that it's trying to work out what created the singularity.

It's exactly the same for black holes. General relativity doesn't say the mass in a black hole must be compressed down to a point, it says "Oh ****** Infinity! Divide by zero error! Fatal exception in Universe 1.0! Please reboot your maths. Have a nice day.".

[Toontown]

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Obviously it's "something" if it is or ever was. Everything is "something". "Nothing" is "something". And it's hardly "adding another turtle" to talk about things that are known to exist (the vacuum, quantum mechanics).


Are you confusing vacuum with your oddly capitalised "void"? Vacuum is very much something and a part of this universe, and quantum mechanics is simply a description of how this universe works (or at least the best we've managed so far).

Yes, if you insist on putting it in that falsely dichotomous and vaguely insulting manner. I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the vacuum and the Void might be one and the same. I'm not the first to do so, and not the first to "oddly capitalize" the "Void" term. I first encountered the term in a Scientific American article back in the '70's.


None of that helps in the slightest if you're trying to figure out what might have happened before either the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed, or even simply if anything could have happened or if "before" even makes sense as a concept.

I'm not trying to figure out what might have happened "before" the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed. I'm simply suggesting that the vacuum and quantum mechanics might be fundamental, and might pre-exist the current spacetime expansion. I have apparently been lured into the misapprehension that this idea is accepted as a possibility in cosmology.

I understand that it is a complete waste of time to discuss such matters here. Such a discussion is clearly a transgression against the sanctity of "skepticism" as practiced by fundamentalist skeptics.

I was temporarily lured into transgression by the thread subject. I'll be moving along now.

[The Man]

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Obviously it's "something" if it is or ever was. Everything is "something". "Nothing" is "something". And it's hardly "adding another turtle" to talk about things that are known to exist (the vacuum, quantum mechanics).

Well that's really "the crux of the biscuit" (to quote Frank Zappa). We know that two opposing 'something' result in effectively nothing. Combine +5 volts with -5 volts and get 0 volts, two waves of equal frequency and amplitude yet 180 degrees out of phase, when combined, give no wave as a result. So the strict dichotomy of " either nothing or something" fails except for being in terms of the distribution of opposing 'somethings'. The more evenly distributed these opposing 'somethings' are the more effective 'nothingness' there is. While when more localized we have clear regions of +5 volts or -5 volts, waves at 0 phase or waves at some other phase (like 180) and energy (mass) or gravitational field. To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.

[Toontown]

Well that's really "the crux of the biscuit" (to quote Frank Zappa). We know that two opposing 'something' result in effectively nothing. Combine +5 volts with -5 volts and get 0 volts, two waves of equal frequency and amplitude yet 180 degrees out of phase, when combined, give no wave as a result. So the strict dichotomy of " either nothing or something" fails except for being in terms of the distribution of opposing 'somethings'. The more evenly distributed these opposing 'somethings' are the more effective 'nothingness' there is. While when more localized we have clear regions of +5 volts or -5 volts, waves at 0 phase or waves at some other phase (like 180) and energy (mass) or gravitational field. To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.

Oh, you were talking to me. Sorry, I was in a reverie, wondering what it would take to avoid being accused of "adding another turtle" around here. A guy tries to sell us the notion that we are in a black hole, and skates. I take pains to avoid adding a turtle, and immediately get accused of adding a turtle.

What you are talking about is the idea behind the fundamental "Void". When you see an electron and a positron momentarily pop out of the vacuum, know that nature's Big Zero has flashed a smile at you. Go ahead and feel lucky. You've got nothing to lose. You are nothing to lose. Sure, the Void is the most powerful nothing there is and could blow a nonexistent head clean on. But it might be out of bullets.

END PRINT. If I talk about it any more I'll be accused of adding a turtle. I may have already stepped over the line.

[Halfcentaur]

When people talk about nothing once precluding something, they're not talking about a void, which seems to be the nothing Lawrence Krauss speaks of. They're talking about actually no thing. I don't think there ever has been no things in that regard.

I don't think Krauss's nothing is the nothing theists speak of when trying to posit a deity with the whole "something cannot come from nothing" argument.

[Toontown]

When people talk about nothing once precluding something, they're not talking about a void, which seems to be the nothing Lawrence Krauss speaks of. They're talking about actually no thing. I don't think there ever has been no things in that regard.

I don't think Krauss's nothing is the nothing theists speak of when trying to posit a deity with the whole "something cannot come from nothing" argument.

At the risk of spawning a superfluous turtle:

Obviously, the nothing that something cannot come from is not the same nothing as the nothing that everything can come from.

The existence of something rules out the nothing that something cannot come from. Even if God recycled an already existing something when He made the universe, or conjured it from the nothing that something can come from.

Leaving the nothing we know, which is always better than the nothing we don't know.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

At the risk of spawning a superfluous turtle:

Obviously, the nothing that something cannot come from is not the same nothing as the nothing that everything can come from.

The existence of something rules out the nothing that something cannot come from. Even if God recycled an already existing something when He made the universe, or conjured it from the nothing that something can come from.

Leaving the nothing we know, which is always better than the nothing we don't know.

Yeh. Yeh. Sure. Sure. Except that turtles are not spawned. They are created by proper sex as are you and I. :confused:

[The Man]

Oh, you were talking to me. Sorry, I was in a reverie, wondering what it would take to avoid being accused of "adding another turtle" around here. A guy tries to sell us the notion that we are in a black hole, and skates. I take pains to avoid adding a turtle, and immediately get accused of adding a turtle.
Well technically I was talking to everyone, which would include you. I don’t know about the ‘selling and skating’ part but if one is going to define just anything as a “turtle” then one really can’t help but add “turtles” when adding, well, anything to the discussion. However I think the original gist of the OP was pretty clear that the turtles were black holes containing universes within black hole containing universe… . So anything else just wouldn’t be a turtle in that regard.


What you are talking about is the idea behind the fundamental "Void". When you see an electron and a positron momentarily pop out of the vacuum, know that nature's Big Zero has flashed a smile at you. Go ahead and feel lucky. You've got nothing to lose. You are nothing to lose. Sure, the Void is the most powerful nothing there is and could blow a nonexistent head clean on. But it might be out of bullets.
Or out of turtles? Hey maybe Super Mario Brothers had something there, shooting turtles?


END PRINT. If I talk about it any more I'll be accused of adding a turtle. I may have already stepped over the line.
Sorry I can’t help much with what others might accuse you of other than to say it wasn’t everyone and if you just want to draw some line so you can step over it that’s entirely up to you. Remember these turtles are black holes so the line would be an event horizon. If you stepped over it we just couldn’t see you on the other side and once you go down that rabbit hole there’s no coming back. So with all the ‘adding turtles’ accusations just flying about every which way from everyone on this thread, if you’re going to stay on this side of the line, “you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

[zeggman]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ah, youngster, you have much to learn. At one time people said the World could not be round for similar reasons and lack of understanding.

Study. Learn. The Universe is a very interesting place.

:w2:

[Toontown]

Well technically I was talking to everyone, which would include you. I don’t know about the ‘selling and skating’ part but if one is going to define just anything as a “turtle” then one really can’t help but add “turtles” when adding, well, anything to the discussion. However I think the original gist of the OP was pretty clear that the turtles were black holes containing universes within black hole containing universe… . So anything else just wouldn’t be a turtle in that regard.

In that regard, I said it is unnecessary to posit black holes as baby universe eggs, pointed to the enmeshed paradox, and pointed to an actual observed phenomenon (virtual particles from the vacuum), demonstrating an observed behavior of nature as an alternative way out of the paradox.


Sorry I can’t help much with what others might accuse you of other than to say it wasn’t everyone and if you just want to draw some line so you can step over it that’s entirely up to you.

Not at all. I was trying to herd the OP back over the line he had stepped over.


Remember these turtles are black holes so the line would be an event horizon. If you stepped over it we just couldn’t see you on the other side and once you go down that rabbit hole there’s no coming back. So with all the ‘adding turtles’ accusations just flying about every which way from everyone on this thread, if you’re going to stay on this side of the line, “you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

Yeah. I feel real lucky. I've already pointed out that the black hole = universe hypo is a non-explanatory paradox-spawning turtle-adder, which, in anything other than a toon thread, would have killed it. But in the toon thread, the hypo never noticed it got hit. Eventually it might see the gaping hole and drop dead. But it is unlikely to see the hole in it's forehead. In any case, the hole will have magically disappeared the next time the hypo appears in a toon thread.

[zeggman]

Ah, youngster, you have much to learn. At one time people said the World could not be round for similar reasons and lack of understanding.

Study. Learn. The Universe is a very interesting place.

:w2:
I have plenty to study and learn without wasting time on useless nonsense.

The universe has billions of years to develop; I do not.

But thanks for addressing each of the objections I raised with such insight.

[The Man]

In that regard, I said it is unnecessary to posit black holes as baby universe eggs, pointed to the enmeshed paradox, and pointed to an actual observed phenomenon (virtual particles from the vacuum), demonstrating an observed behavior of nature as an alternative way out of the paradox.

Probably why I said…

So anything else just wouldn’t be a turtle in that regard.
And before that…
To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.




Not at all. I was trying to herd the OP back over the line he had stepped over.



Yeah. I feel real lucky. I've already pointed out that the black hole = universe hypo is a non-explanatory paradox-spawning turtle-adder, which, in anything other than a toon thread, would have killed it. But in the toon thread, the hypo never noticed it got hit. Eventually it might see the gaping hole and drop dead. But it is unlikely to see the hole in it's forehead. In any case, the hole will have magically disappeared the next time the hypo appears in a toon thread.
Glad to hear it and as I’ve already pointed out that without the actual quantum gravity details worked out both the explanatory power or “paradox-spawning turtle-adder” nature of “the black hole = universe hypo” are purely speculative at best. Heck speculation can still be fun though , by going either way on a whim or just going all ‘toonish’ if desired.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have plenty to study and learn without wasting time on useless nonsense.

The universe has billions of years to develop; I do not.

But thanks for addressing each of the objections I raised with such insight.

OK. If you really would like me to. ;)

Seems nonsensical on the face of it.

And you got your degree in Physics from which university? :confused:

The universe is incomprehensibly big,It is big. Just because you cannot get your head around its bigness is your problem. You do not speak for everyone.

black holes are not.
This depends on your yardstick. The theory referenced in this thread would make such a statement moot.

[/quote]The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not.[/quote]

Ah. so you don't have a degree in Physics. The Universe is chock full of stuff.
I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible,Try harder. You admit to disputing something you don't understand. Sorry you don't care.

as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.Yes it does. Most of 20th and 21st Century Physics "makes no sense what-so-ever". Yet, apparently, your computer works. Curious.

I was not attempting to be nasty to you. Just helpful. :mrocks

[zeggman]

OK. If you really would like me to. ;)
That would be nice, actually.

And you got your degree in Physics from which university? :confused:
You are correct in your snarkiness. I do not have a degree in Physics.

It is big. Just because you cannot get your head around its bigness is your problem. You do not speak for everyone.
What a relief.

This depends on your yardstick. The theory referenced in this thread would make such a statement moot.
How so?

The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not.

Ah. so you don't have a degree in Physics. The Universe is chock full of stuff.
Perhaps. I assume you mean shimmering quanta here, but somehow even with all these virtual particles popping in and out of existence the rivers stay in their beds rather than materializing in streams between the earth and the moon. Bags of gold stay locked in underground seams rather than beaming themselves under my pillow. Mostly, "matter" stays where it's been in the past, and "empty space" stays where it's been. So I stand behind my physics-degree-lacking statement. Feel free to mock some more without actually addressing the objection, because since you (I assume) have a physics degree (excuse me, a Physics degree) and I do not, there is really no hope of actually explaining why I'm wrong in a way which I could comprehend.

Try harder. You admit to disputing something you don't understand. Sorry you don't care.
Sorry you don't. I gave the basis for my dispute. So far, your response has been to tap your diploma and cluck your tongue. Fair enough, but don't pretend you're actually contributing substance to the discussion.

Yes it does. Most of 20th and 21st Century Physics "makes no sense what-so-ever". Yet, apparently, your computer works. Curious.
The 20th and 21st Century Physics (do you always speak in headlines?) which doesn't make sense is not what powers my computer. Maybe someday we'll be calculating in qubits, and I'm happy that research is proceeding, but my computer runs on garden-variety electronics, which is quite sensible. Curious.

I was not attempting to be nasty to you. Just helpful. :mrocks
It seems more nasty than helpful, but that's probably just degree envy or something. I don't see you attempting much in the way of actual explanation, but I do see lots of "respect my authoritay" which, sorry, I don't. If you have some facts, or even some helpful analogies, I could probably muster some respect for those.

[sol invictus]

Black holes are round (the non-spinning ones, at least), like basketballs. They have a center and an edge (the event horizon).

The universe, as far as we can tell, has no center and no edge. Every point is equivalent to every other point. On that basis alone, the universe is not a black hole, or inside a black hole.

As for the fact that the universe has the right density to be a black hole the size of the cosmological horizon, that's not a coincidence - it's a consequence of Einstein's equations - but it's because both black holes and expanding universes are solutions to the same set of equations, not because they are the same solution (they're not).

[Puppycow]

CMNry4PE93Y

This theory reminds me of the theory that we might just be a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, etc.

I don't have much use for such theories.

The problem with the simulation theory is that we never find any bugs in the program. In The Matrix there were occasionally small bugs, which gave a hint that it was actually a simulation and not real.

I'm not very interested in unfalsifiable theories which make no testable predictions. Does theory that there's a universe in every black hole make any testable predictions?

[zeggman]

From the article linked in the OP, it seemed that space-time "torque" (or "twist" or "torsion" - I don't recall the novel jargon the author used) predicted that galaxies on one side of the universe would spin one way and those on the other would spin the other way, which fit (he said) what we observe. Or maybe it didn't so much predict it as explain it. I don't recall, from my cursory reading, any testable prediction (e.g., the speed and distribution of these twirling galaxies), but I don't have a physics degree so I may have missed something obvious.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That would be nice, actually.


You are correct in your snarkiness. I do not have a degree in Physics.


What a relief.


How so?


Perhaps. I assume you mean shimmering quanta here, but somehow even with all these virtual particles popping in and out of existence the rivers stay in their beds rather than materializing in streams between the earth and the moon. Bags of gold stay locked in underground seams rather than beaming themselves under my pillow. Mostly, "matter" stays where it's been in the past, and "empty space" stays where it's been. So I stand behind my physics-degree-lacking statement. Feel free to mock some more without actually addressing the objection, because since you (I assume) have a physics degree (excuse me, a Physics degree) and I do not, there is really no hope of actually explaining why I'm wrong in a way which I could comprehend.


Sorry you don't. I gave the basis for my dispute. So far, your response has been to tap your diploma and cluck your tongue. Fair enough, but don't pretend you're actually contributing substance to the discussion.


The 20th and 21st Century Physics (do you always speak in headlines?) which doesn't make sense is not what powers my computer. Maybe someday we'll be calculating in qubits, and I'm happy that research is proceeding, but my computer runs on garden-variety electronics, which is quite sensible. Curious.


It seems more nasty than helpful, but that's probably just degree envy or something. I don't see you attempting much in the way of actual explanation, but I do see lots of "respect my authoritay" which, sorry, I don't. If you have some facts, or even some helpful analogies, I could probably muster some respect for those.

If you don't know or don't understand, try asking rather than just saying you are ignorant and want to stay that way. I posted in my OP a reference to an interesting speculative article that I questioned and gave a joking title. I claimed no superior knowledge; nor yet do I have any.

It has generated a bunch of comments -- some informed and some funny.

Usually, at some point in a thread like this, someone like sol invictus will show up and many of us will learn something.

You might also look at: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

:th:

[zeggman]

If you don't know or don't understand, try asking rather than just saying you are ignorant and want to stay that way.
That's not what I did. I stated a couple of objections, and confessed that I wouldn't be able to understand a mathematical explanation of why my objections were misplaced. This was an implied suggestion to anyone who wanted to address my objections that I would prefer a non-mathematical explanation. If nothing but mathematics could explain it, too bad for me.

I posted in my OP a reference to an interesting speculative article that I questioned and gave a joking title. I claimed no superior knowledge; nor yet do I have any.
Surely your degree in physics gives you such knowledge.

Usually, at some point in a thread like this, someone like sol invictus will show up and many of us will learn something.
He's stated a different physical-not-mathematical objection to the theory. I don't see a condescending follow-up from you to his post.

You might also look at: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

:th:
I've followed your suggestion, but I've been unable to confirm the claims which PBS is making there. In fact, at this site (http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline.html), and specifically at this link (http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline/1931-The-Theory.html), it says:

In 1932 Wilson also tried to explain the one-way current flow in a point-contact rectifier (1874 Milestone) as due to quantum-mechanical tunneling from metal to semiconductor - or vice-versa. But along with similar attempts from other scientists in the early 1930s, his explanation eventually proved wrong.

Satisfactory explanations of rectification finally emerged in 1938. Boris Davydov at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, Nevill Mott at Bristol University, England, and Walter Schottky at Siemens and Halske in Munich, Germany independently attributed the phenomenon to a concentration of electrons on the semiconductor surface that set up an asymmetric barrier to current flow.The discovery of the p-n junction is attributed to a "serendipitous discovery" rather than a methodical application of quantum theory. Your men Wigner and Sietz, while contributing to quantum theory, don't appear to have been pivotal in the development of semiconductors, though something called a "Wigner-Seitz cell" serves as a half-page introduction to something called Brillouin Zones in some semiconductor texts (usually no discussion of quantum effects there, but maybe it's implied).

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

[Cuddles]

I'm not very interested in unfalsifiable theories which make no testable predictions. Does theory that there's a universe in every black hole make any testable predictions?

I've already linked to some papers on the subject, and you can find even more here (http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-322/table322.htm). Asking if torsion theories make testable predictions is like asking if string theory makes any predictions - yes, but you're going to have to be a hell of a lot more specific if you want any actual details. This isn't a single theory that some guy has just written an article on, it's an entire sub-field of physics with roots going back to Einstein and earlier. Some theories predict things that are obviously wrong and are only looked at for fun or because of where they might lead in the future, others predict almost exactly the same as general relativity and, as with string theory, are beyond our ability to distinguish with current technology.

Black holes are round (the non-spinning ones, at least), like basketballs. They have a center and an edge (the event horizon).

The universe, as far as we can tell, has no center and no edge. Every point is equivalent to every other point. On that basis alone, the universe is not a black hole, or inside a black hole.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get at the pdfs of his full talks, only the abstracts, but he seems to have addressed this. For example:
In this talk, I will argue that torsion’s repulsion not only prevents the formation of unphysical singularities in collapsing black holes, but also allows for a scenario in which every black hole produces a new universe inside. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in
another universe. This scenario could explain the origin of the Big Bang and the arrow of time. I will also demonstrate that this scenario explains why the Universe today appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic, without needing cosmic inflation. Moreover, if we were living in a rotating black hole then our Universe should have a “preferred direction” which could be related to the observed matter-antimatter imbalance and neutrino oscillations.
http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~elunghi/abstracts/poplawski.pdf

As for the fact that the universe has the right density to be a black hole the size of the cosmological horizon, that's not a coincidence - it's a consequence of Einstein's equations - but it's because both black holes and expanding universes are solutions to the same set of equations, not because they are the same solution (they're not).

The whole point of torsion is that it goes beyond general relativity*. The effects are only significant at extremely high densities, so they mostly agree but give different answers about what happens inside black holes and in the early universe. Merely repeating what general relativity says is pointless, since the whole point is that these theories will disagree with GR on certain points, just not the points that we've been able to test so far.

It's also worth noting that Poplawski does not actually claim that we must be living in a black hole, he simply says that appears to be one of the allowed solutions. There could be any number of reasons why it turns out to be wrong, even if this theory did eventually replace GR.

*OK, "goes beyond" sounds a bit wooish. What I mean is that torsion is an actual valid extension to GR. It's actually similar to the cosmological constant. They're both quantities that can form a valid part of the equations, but which standard GR assumes to be zero and ignores. We now think that a cosmological constant, or something like it, needs to be included, and it may also be the case that non-zero torsion can also solve some problems GR has at extreme scales.

[sol invictus]

Unfortunately I can't seem to get at the pdfs of his full talks, only the abstracts, but he seems to have addressed this. For example:

http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~elunghi/abstracts/poplawski.pdf


That abstract sets off all sorts of crank alarm bells. He's claiming including torsion magically solves at least five of the biggest problems in physics.

Note that this (torsion and related extensions of general relativity) is something that people have been studying for the last 100 years, without it ever catching on or getting much attention.


The whole point of torsion is that it goes beyond general relativity*. The effects are only significant at extremely high densities, so they mostly agree but give different answers about what happens inside black holes and in the early universe. Merely repeating what general relativity says is pointless, since the whole point is that these theories will disagree with GR on certain points, just not the points that we've been able to test so far.

If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small. See here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.4393v2.pdf) for instance. What I said about black holes and the universe applies to the universe today, when the average energy density is low and the effects of torsion (given those constraints) are totally negligible.

[not_so_new]

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

I think you are probably taking this way too seriously. It's all good, welcome to the forum.

To be clear, you are dealing with a lot of highly educated and / or very bright folks on this site. There are a lot of crackpot types that come out of the woodwork around here making claims that can't be backed up (not saying you are one of these trolls at all).

Your fist post on this thread said "I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever."

Which to a lot of folks around here rings of troll'ish behavior. It's like saying "I don't know what this subject is about and frankly I don't want to learn, I just know that you are wrong."

That may not be your intent but that was how your post came across, to me anyway.

Reading your follow up replies (getting past the bickering) it sounds like you are interested in learning more about the subject. There are two ways to do this.

- Someone like Sol (others as well) could show you the actual math, that is the only real way to understand these discussions.

- If you don't have the mathematical background (which many of us don't) then you will have to take their word for it and stay at the 100,000 foot view of the subject. Words do a really bad job of explaining subjects like this, the language of the universe is math after all....

;)

Unless you know the math at some point you are going to have to take someone's word on this unfortunately.

That said, it will always raise the ire of people around here if you say "on the surface this subject doesn't look to be true so, while I don't have the expertise to understand the subject at hand, I am going to still say it can't be true." Just warning you on the reactions you will get with that line of thought.

Again, it's all good, welcome to the forum.

[The Man]

If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small. See here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.4393v2.pdf) for instance. What I said about black holes and the universe applies to the universe today, when the average energy density is low and the effects of torsion (given those constraints) are totally negligible.

A compelling counterargument, given the torsion as the dominate factor for the black hole universe. One would expect it to also be a dominant factor in that (this if we were in a black hole) universe ( if not locally then at least globally) and that doesn’t seem to be the case . I do notice in the paper you linked….


Moreover, since the number of indices on the irreducible torsion components is odd, all the terms in Eq. (2) violate effective CPT symmetry. Laboratory experiments can therefore in principle discern different torsion signals for particles and antiparticles.

So perhaps such torsion considerations may yet be helpful in addressing the matter antimatter imbalance stemming from an earlier time in the universe when it could play a more effective role?

[Halfcentaur]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

But if your universe were a miniature universe compared to another universe, you would not know, and something very small in this big universe would be incomprehensibly big to you in the miniature universe.

I don't particularly see any reason to think any of this is true, but your objections seem a bit limited to me.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That's not what I did. I stated a couple of objections, and confessed that I wouldn't be able to understand a mathematical explanation of why my objections were misplaced. This was an implied suggestion to anyone who wanted to address my objections that I would prefer a non-mathematical explanation. If nothing but mathematics could explain it, too bad for me.


Surely your degree in physics gives you such knowledge.


He's stated a different physical-not-mathematical objection to the theory. I don't see a condescending follow-up from you to his post.


I've followed your suggestion, but I've been unable to confirm the claims which PBS is making there. In fact, at this site (http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline.html), and specifically at this link (http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline/1931-The-Theory.html), it says:

The discovery of the p-n junction is attributed to a "serendipitous discovery" rather than a methodical application of quantum theory. Your men Wigner and Sietz, while contributing to quantum theory, don't appear to have been pivotal in the development of semiconductors, though something called a "Wigner-Seitz cell" serves as a half-page introduction to something called Brillouin Zones in some semiconductor texts (usually no discussion of quantum effects there, but maybe it's implied).

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

At no point was I trying to be nasty to you. I was not intending to be smug.

As the Red Queen said, "You may call it "nonsense" if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"

I'm sorry that you have taken things personally. I hesitate to say it but "It's only the Internet". ;)

[zeggman]

At no point was I trying to be a troll, but apparently that's what I looked like to not_so_new. I'll try to be more careful. No hard feelings on my part; sorry about the bickering.

[not_so_new]

At no point was I trying to be a troll, but apparently that's what I looked like to not_so_new. I'll try to be more careful. No hard feelings on my part; sorry about the bickering.

It's all good Zeggman. As I said, your replies after the first post on this tread seem to point in a different direction.

We get lots and lots of crazies here based on the site so I think the regulars around here (myself included although I tend to lurk more than post) are quick to jump the gun when something looks a little out of left field. If you stick around for a while you will start to see a pattern to the crazy.

:D

Again, welcome to the forum.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's all good Zeggman. As I said, your replies after the first post on this tread seem to point in a different direction.

We get lots and lots of crazies here based on the site so I think the regulars around here (myself included although I tend to lurk more than post) are quick to jump the gun when something looks a little out of left field. If you stick around for a while you will start to see a pattern to the crazy.

:D

Again, welcome to the forum.

Seconded. :grouphug5

[Cuddles]

That abstract sets off all sorts of crank alarm bells. He's claiming including torsion magically solves at least five of the biggest problems in physics.

No, he's claiming that torsion completely non-magically solves, or at least may have the potential to solve, some of the biggest problems in physics. Just as people claim might be the case for string theory, M-theory, super-symmetry, MOND and so on. That's pretty much the entire reason people study these things in the first place. If they didn't have at least the hope of solving these problems, why would anyone bother with them? Obviously most, if not all, will fail to live up to that hope, but it's rather silly to dismiss them simply because they dare to try to fix the problems with existing theories.

Note that this (torsion and related extensions of general relativity) is something that people have been studying for the last 100 years, without it ever catching on or getting much attention.

So? Either it works or it doesn't. If you want to criticise it based on the actual science and maths, go ahead. Claiming its crank stuff based solely on an argument to popularity really isn't going to cut it.

If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small. See here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.4393v2.pdf) for instance. What I said about black holes and the universe applies to the universe today, when the average energy density is low and the effects of torsion (given those constraints) are totally negligible.

No. If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small, and only be significant under extreme conditions such as the densities inside a black hole or during the early universe. Which, as I already pointed out, is exactly the areas the claims are being made about. It's even explicitly stated in the abstract you just dismissed out of hand:
I will also demonstrate that this scenario explains why the Universe today appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic
You're not coming up with some obvious gotcha here. Your criticism is a point he specifically addresses, so merely mentioning that it's a potential problem is hardly useful. Why don't you try reading the actual papers and tell us where you find an actual problem in them?

Note that I don't actually have a horse in this race. It's not an area I've encountered much before and I've only skimmed over a few of the papers rather than reading about it in depth. It's just that appears to be a lot more than anyone else here has done, and people seem weirdly eager to dismiss it all out of hand rather than actually learn about a potentially interesting bit of theoretical physics.

[sol invictus]

No, he's claiming that torsion completely non-magically solves, or at least may have the potential to solve, some of the biggest problems in physics. Just as people claim might be the case for string theory, M-theory, super-symmetry, MOND and so on.

Yes - but torsion has been around since the beginning of GR and is very well understood, by contrast to the newer, far more complex and sophisticated theories and ideas you mention. Why is he the only person out of all those that have studied it that believe it's going to solve all those problems?

Including torsion is equivalent to changing the classical theory of gravity. We know the world is quantum, and the hard problems in fundamental physics are essentially all associated with how quantum mechanics and gravity come together.

The real problem with his ideas is that if the torsion terms are as small as experiment tells us they must be, they are only important at densities and energies where quantum gravity effects are also important. But we have very little knowledge or control over such effects, other than to say that they are almost certainly there. So adding torsion into the mix is pretty much meaningless.

As for the black hole/Hubble radius/universe's average density thing, that was in response to the OP ("I remember reading an article in ISTR a science fiction magazine that claimed the the Universe was a Black Hole because it was of the right density to be one..."). That applies today, in the current universe where the density is very low and torsion totally negligible.