Big Bangs are easier to understand...

[Max™]

...if they're not the beginning of everything, but just one of those things that happens from time to time.


<= continued from my post in the LHC thread, where I started rambling about black holes, and what an event horizon is.

I said that an event horizon is the edge of the universe, and described a black hole as follows:

When you get a certain amount of distance folded up past a certain point, instead of intruding on the planck length, it attempts to unfold into another Universe.

Luckily, Universes are self-consistent structures, as we can assume by the roughly 14 billion years of history behind us.

So what do you get when one universe attempts to unfold within another?

An edge in spacetime. A place where one universe ends and another begins.

This is why I don't believe the LHC could produce a black hole, even if it reached a certain "critical" density.

I believe you have to have a certain total mass, AND that critical density... for the record, that mass would be something like a solar mass.

A universe with huge reef like galaxies would be a fertile stellar nursery, and would produce LOTS of black holes... when we look at life, we notice that genes drive life forms to produce lots of offspring, but not so many as to use up all of their resources.

Why shouldn't universes reproduce too?

Stars produce heavier materials, which in turn can produce more interesting and longer lived stars.

Why should the cycles of birth, life, and death stop at the scale of stars, or galaxies?

A universe that produces lots of stars, would produce lots of black holes, with more black holes, there are more ways for the shape of spacetime to unfold, and more potential variations in the lifecycle of the daughter universes.

A universe that does not possess enough energy to resist collapsing into a big crunch can produce one daughter universe.

A universe that can resist collapsing, would produce at least one black hole, and through random luck, you'd eventually get a universe that produced two daughters, then three, then fourty, then billions!

[racecar]

That is something I can understand and is really beautiful.

[Max™]

Thank you, it isn't purely my idea, others have suggested it from time to time in one part or another.

Everything I have worked out in my theory suggests it to me though, in a strange way.


I find it even more interesting when you consider implications for religion. God goes from creating randomly for some unknown reason, to a cosmic gardener, nurturing the more interesting universes to watch the stories they tell as they bloom.

[dleviwing]

So what do you get when one universe attempts to unfold within another?

An edge in spacetime. A place where one universe ends and another begins.

That’s quite an imagination you have there Max. Do you really buy into that type of magical conjecture?

[Max™]

Why is it a magical conjecture?

What else is an event horizon but an edge in space?

The inside of a black hole is a region of incredible density, energy, potential.

If you view what hawking said to be correct, then a black hole would evaporate, and entropy would always tend towards a maximum.

If you disagree, and black holes don't evaporate, then they must cheat that entropy somehow.

What would it look like to cheat entropy?

[AntonioLao]

So what do you get when one universe attempts to unfold within another?

You get a p-brane where the workhorses are a bunch of spin-2 vector gauge bosons of underpaid gravitons. It is agreed in M-theory that only gravitons are allowed to travel between braneworlds since they are made of closed-loop superstrings.

[dleviwing]

Hi Max;
It’s conjecture due to the fact that no one has yet presented a real functional theory of gravity; or any of the other forces for that matter.

I’ve already responded to others that have had similar views as you. All you really need to do is evaluate for yourself what is actually “KNOWN”, what is “UNKNOWN”, what is “MATHEMATICAL INTERPRETATIONS”, what is “MEASURED FACTS”, and what is “BELIEVED”; there’s probably a few more but this should keep you busy.

[Max™]

I'm not big on string theory.

Known: universes are self-consistent objects, you don't see other universes opening up within pre-existing universes.

Unknown: do black holes even exist, there are definite signs suggesting they do, like the gravitational anomaly at the center of the milky way, but it is technically still unobserved.

Math interpretation: get enough mass packed into a small enough radius and it should no longer interact with the rest of the universe traditionally, if at all.

Measured facts: Cheeto's rock.

Believed: an event horizon is a point where worldlines can no longer return to the universe, thus it is simple enough to say that it is an edge in the universe.

Conjecture based on math: You can describe a black hole mathematically with the holographic principle by projecting the appropriate calculations onto a 5-D Anti-de Sitter spacetime. The interesting thing is that the projection describes a cloud of very energetic particles.

Leap of my own strange logic: if the inside out mathematical interpretation of a black hole describes a cloud of highly energetic particles, what would you get if you removed the event horizon (and the universe which produced the event horizon in question?)... an expanding cloud of highly energetic particles.

What would that look like?

A new universe unfolding perhaps.

[Max™]

You get a p-brane where the workhorses are a bunch of spin-2 vector gauge bosons of underpaid gravitons. It is agreed in M-theory that only gravitons are allowed to travel between braneworlds since they are made of closed-loop superstrings.

I'm with Smolin on String Theory.

Interesting, can be useful at times as a different way to phrase ideas, but it is not a good description of reality.

0 testable predictions, 0 ties to reality shown yet, and 10 ^500 possible versions says to me that String Theory is not the way to go.


As for Wing, I'm working on presenting the theory of gravity you're asking for actually, hoping to get into a dialogue with several physicists I've recently discovered are working in a similar direction.


I doubt that you've found many people with QUITE the same interpretation that I'm implying, as what I'm basically suggesting is something that I want to write a book on after I get done with the problem between GR and QM.

Tying the fixed theory of the universe into philosophy, and faith.


The way that my mind models the cosmic garden concept is so powerful it makes me want to cry sometimes. I don't believe I'll ever get away from it, if just because as I work on unraveling how the universe works, or consider the nature of awareness and mind, I see The Signature of the Gardener.

I almost want to write the book just to use that title.

[AntonioLao]

I'm with Smolin on String Theory.

He changed camp to quantum gravity. Now he is critizing the works of superstring theorists.