A matter of PhysicsFollow

Now, I know a post list this may be heavily derided and ridiculed. I also know that there are some who have advanced educations in this realm that I am to discuss. But just bear with me for a moment or two.

I happen to be watching a Science Channel show on Stephen Hawking and his theories on black holes. One that I've probably seen before or similar to it. It's something that I've had a passing interest in for some time, physics and space in general. To simplify, there is a correlation to the beginning of our universe - the Big Bang - and the phenomenon that occurs in this universe, that of the black hole. The Big Bang is the theory that our universe was begat of a singularity - an infinitely small, infinitely dense point that exploded into all the matter that currently exists. Black holes, on the other hand, is just the opposite - matter, light and energy that compresses into an infinitely small, infinitely dense singular point. Furthermore, there is some evidence that black holes eventually stop consuming matter and seem to dissipate, but the question of what happened to all the energy and matter that was absorbed? This brings into the equation the concept of cosmic branes, which appear to be independent universes, floating about in what is called the bulk. These branes occasionally touch and collide with each other, creating variances in their respective universes.

My theory, which probably is not original, is that the black holes in our universe are the birthing of other universes. Think about it for a moment. A black hole is essentially a collection of matter condensed in an infinite gravitational pull with nowhere to go - but then collapses, or disperses, with no measurable residue. These collapsed black holes could be the rip in the space-time continuum that creates or interacts with other branes.

Essentially, the matter collected into a black hole is spit out into a new universe, a pocket universe that may be a step lower on the hierarchy of our own. This leads to the conclusion that our own universe was spawned from another universe 'above' ours, and that our universe subsequently spits out others.

Again, I am not a student of physics, indeed I am not a student of anything and have no education to speak of. If this theory has indeed been studied and published I would love to take a look at it but have not been able to find any sufficient information. If anyone else has any better insights, then by all means let the discussion begin.

Fascinating stuff.

I have no education in physics either, and know very little on the subject, so it's all speculation. But, on this subject, even Hawkins specualtes, so fUck it.

I tend to think that the Universe is a sum zero game, which would fit well within the blach hole/big bang theory. Every plus has a minus, nothing is created, nothing disappears, etc... The other fascinating thing is that the universe is composed primarily of dark matter, and no one has a clue of what that really is. Or what it does.

I think Kelvy needs to join in this discussion, but it's blantantly obvious that our uderstanding of the Universe is about as developped as the caveman's understanding of the Earth. We can observe phenomenons, but can't explain them. Our level of consciousness can reach a certain point of understanding and conceptualisation, but it's not suited for something as vast as space, or something as "unnatural" as a lack of time/space, or at least as we know it. We can't conceptualise infinity, just like we can't conceptualise the pre-big bang.

When I think about all that, I tend to think that the probability that we are the only living/conscious beings in this universe is ridiculously small. We are so insignificant in the giagantic mass of emptynesss that it's almost impossible that all this was created only for us. We are just byproducts.

Well, it's a bit early in the morning so I'm babbling on.

Would be nice to hear from somenoe who has a clue what they're talking about.

And no, gabji, I didn't mean you.

Ah! White holes! That's what I couldn't think of looking for.

And, no dank, but about a six-pack...

That sounds like the "event horizon" around a singularity, the point that if you cross you cannot come back, and if light crosses it cannot escape the black holes gravity, resulting in them being, well, black.

Kelvy's busy being all girly. hrmph.

Nexa

So, you know how the closer an object moves to the speed of light, the slower time passes for it?

Black holes have a gravitational pull so strong that they capture even light, which is known as the fastest moving thing in the universe. So, is it possible that when a black hole sucks something in, it is forced to accelerate, faster and faster, then to the object it may have only been in the black hole for 2 hours going like 50% the speed of light, but to the rest of the slow moving universe (us) it would have been about 2 million years? So when we throw something into a black hole, maybe it will reappear in 2 million, or in other words travel into the future?

That was my random theory of the day...

I didn't see you add anything to this thread, ****.



The concept of black holes being a "time warp" has been around for a while now. I recall hearing something like this in elementary school 20 years ago.

Mmm here we go. Time Dilation and the Event Horizon. Fascinating stuff.


Edited, Jun 13th 2007 2:57pm by Kaelesh

From what I remember on this subject (namely, part of a SciAm article that's about 4-5 years old and was dealing more with negative energy and its consequences) the "cosmic censorship" idea is more that it's not possible to make a singularity observable through any means (i.e., that there is no way to determine a unique solution for anything that relies on a singularity - there must exist at least one non-singular solution). Obviously, worded that way, it plays royal hell with the whole Big Bang concept.

See here for a wonderful example of this.

Barbarella?

Barbarella?

Nexa's favourite movie. True story.

Blah can't find the link as I have to leave for class soon, but actually particles can leave the local area.

It has been awhile since I read the journal, but it had to do with matter spontaneously appearing and disappearing in pairs. While one particle cannot escape the gravity on the "surface" of a singularity, it's sister particle can. Which is why black holes do emit particles.

Hawkins

Hawking, you slack jawed idiot.

Maybe you were thinking of a Screaming Jay Hawkins song you heard once? He does put a spell on some people.

'Could not find a scholarly journal article, but here's a wikipedia overview of hawking radiation.

Edited, Jun 14th 2007 10:07pm by Allegory