An Idea

[Max™]

That is the subject which I was saying is in fact discussed by many in the quantum cosmology and quantum gravity field, only a white hole would be indistinguishable from a big bang (shouldn't be hard to see why) to an observer riding along inside it.

[dipayankar]

I would personally like the multiverse concept, but I would rather go with the concept that the black holes are blobs in the Universe.

As usual, Dippy, you put your finger on the key question.

Let's take one step at a time; if (and it's a big if) we accept the concept that a black hole is indeed a hole and not just a blob with infinite density, then we need to consider what is on the other side of the boundary through which the hole is made. It's convenient to say that the other side is a white hole though there may be many different descriptions of what that looks like. If it's an antimatter mirror of our own world then it gives us a neat explanation for the M/AM problem. It also provides a convenient explanation for the formation of the galaxies and their rotation; neither of which are adequately explained by the currently accepted model.

So what's on the other side? There are a number of possibilities and I have only considered a few which are very much open to argument.

ONE UNIVERSE
The wormhole concept has black holes interconnected within our own universe but does not use the M/AM concept. My version of this has a matter black hole connected to an antimatter white hole; both within our own universe. This obviates the need for a parallel universe at all and means that M and AM exist within our world, being quarantined from eachother by the great distance between the galaxies.

TWO UNIVERSES
The simplest parallel universe model would have just one matter world and one antimatter world existing in balance with eachother and interconnected through the BH/WH connections.

THREE OR MORE
It's quite possible to draw up a concept with a limited number of parallel universes which are interconnected - just like a three dimensional Venn diagram with interlinking through the BH/WHs

MULTIPLE OR INFINITE UNIVERSES
The fishegg concept has parallel universes in such great numbers that our existence is accounted for by pure chance. This popular sci-fi model may be adapted by allowing our BH/WH pairs to be in different parallel universes, providing a link between them.

All of these concepts exist within current scientific considerations but the enjoining of the M/AM concept does not. The big issue that comes from them is that we don't need the big bang; we have instead, a series of small bangs, each resulting in the creation of a galaxy. I see this as the steady state universe which Fred Hoyle was seeking.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

I would personally like the multiverse concept, but I would rather go with the concept that the black holes are blobs in the Universe.

Hi Dippy

Stephen Hawking has the same problem. He has made many statements concerning the conservation of information which get a bit difficult to sustain when a BH is involved. If it's just a blob then what happens to all of the information which is sucked in? The prevailing view is that it is lost as the structure is stripped from all of the particles which enter. However, at a recent conference he made some quite equivocal remarks concerning open and closed systems which open the door to consideration of the models described in my last post.

All bets are on and here are my odds:

A single interconnected universe: evens
Two universes in parallel: 5 to 1 against
A few universes: 20 to 1 against
Infinite universes: 100 to 1 against
Blobs: 100 to 1 against

regards
Felix

[Max™]

The fact that there is one Universe which is even partially described by mathematics, and there is an infinite number of mathematical theories suggests that there must be a Universe described by each of those mathematical theories.

Anything other than an infinite manifold of Universes is not simple, and lacks explanatory power as a framework.

The laws of physics would have to be completely and utterly wrong for black holes to not be what you call "blobs"... as I understand those laws pretty well, and the reasoning behind them, I'm gonna go with the guys with the PhD's here.

[dipayankar]

What about an Universe folded onto itself. Seems far fetched, but lets start getting wild ideas.

Hi Dippy

Stephen Hawking has the same problem. He has made many statements concerning the conservation of information which get a bit difficult to sustain when a BH is involved. If it's just a blob then what happens to all of the information which is sucked in? The prevailing view is that it is lost as the structure is stripped from all of the particles which enter. However, at a recent conference he made some quite equivocal remarks concerning open and closed systems which open the door to consideration of the models described in my last post.

All bets are on and here are my odds:

A single interconnected universe: evens
Two universes in parallel: 5 to 1 against
A few universes: 20 to 1 against
Infinite universes: 100 to 1 against
Blobs: 100 to 1 against

regards
Felix

[melanie]

Universe folded onto itself.

In this Omniscient Reality.
How can Source be engaging in Self-discovery, if It knows it all?


This very instant... say what is 'known'... of all this that is known...

[Felix Schrodinger]

What about an Universe folded onto itself. Seems far fetched, but lets start getting wild ideas.

Hi Dippy

Yes indeed, that's a variation on the single interconnected universe.

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Felix;

If there is an antimatter parallel univese, would we be connected to it, would it be one or two universes?

And I still don't know what the difference is between antimatter and matter, other than charge. Do you know if there are any other differences?

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Maybe the difference between matter and antimatter lies with the quarks:





Antimatter.....Matter

[austintorn@aol.com]

Any takers besides myself and Fred Hoyle?

The universe has no bounds, but perhaps the largest an object can be is just before it collapses into a black hole; the smallest is the Planck length, so maybe black holes take in the energy and transfer it back to within the Planck space. I have to admit that I made this up.