Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

DURGADAS DATTA.: on 6/27/16 at 13:11pm UTC, wrote The balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universes on...

Basil Altaie: on 4/21/11 at 21:50pm UTC, wrote As for the Black Hole Universe it might be useful to see the following...

wilton.alano@gmail.com: on 3/13/11 at 23:03pm UTC, wrote We were wrong every time we thought we had find the "entire" (Earth, Solar...

JOE BLOGS: on 3/6/11 at 5:57am UTC, wrote Prior to this universe was the big crunch and that is a Godel universe...

Carmen Putrino: on 2/10/11 at 22:59pm UTC, wrote I believe everyone has everything backward. Imagine an expanding universe...

Mikey: on 10/29/10 at 2:32am UTC, wrote Ya know, Tom VanAcker wrote a book called General Unified Theory about 5...

Marino Mangone: on 7/30/10 at 1:53am UTC, wrote When are all the people/scientist in all fields going to start to work...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/28/10 at 19:07pm UTC, wrote In my humble opinion, a real scientific base is essential. The sciences...



FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Black Hole Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on May. 28, 2010 @ 20:01 GMT
yes our universe is in a black hole only my finger is out of it

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 30, 2010 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Amrit,

You said "yes our universe is in a black hole only my finger is out of it"

Is that a joke? Recently I have been considering how scale invariance fits into my TOE model. I think it is possible that the 'singularity' of a Black Hole is isolated from the rest of the Universe by a fullerene-like M2-brane that surrounds it. Similarly, scale invariance may allow this M2-brane to be the graphene-like outer edge of a 'tiny' Universe within (with different values of h, c, etc,). I have compared it to Dr. Suess' "Horton Hears a Who" - only no one has ears large enough to hear the tiny Universe within our Universe (and - of course - it is also separated by a Black Hole horizon).

IMHO, the author's ideas are not 'too crazy', however I don't think neutrinos will reveal the secrets of the Universe, but rather, the Higgs effect will (and I don't expect a simple Standard Model Higgs - it is far too simple a theory to explain the masses of three different generations). Quite frankly, I also expect a heavier right-handed Z' to be discovered by the LHC, so neutrinos may help some small degree in this respect.

I worry that my ideas are becoming 'too crazy'. I explained my latest ideas to my wife this morning. She says that it isn't my job to try to understand God, and people will think I'm crazy for trying. Once upon a time, Lawrence Crowell and I traded ideas quite a bit. But that was back when my ideas were simpler than his. Now I'm playing around with more dimensions that Lawrence is, and I worry that he thinks I've become 'too crazy'. He has referred to other people's ideas as originating on Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon', but I haven't heard him refer to me as such. Should we worry that our ideas are 'crazy', or should we worry that our ideas aren't 'crazy enough' to actually explain reality?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Desperate In Dallas replied on May. 30, 2010 @ 02:07 GMT
Dear Ray Mongolia,

I am a homosexual, in need of this "fullerine-like M2-brane" you so passionately describe.

Yours with love,

Desperate In Dallas.

report post as inappropriate

feed your desperation replied on May. 30, 2010 @ 06:36 GMT
You are in need,, I will fulfill it, with a emphasis on fulfill.

report post as inappropriate


Desperate In Dallas wrote on May. 30, 2010 @ 02:06 GMT
Dear Ray Mongolia,

I am a homosexual, in need of this "fullerine-like M2-brane" you so passionately describe.

Yours with love,

Desperate In Dallas.

report post as inappropriate


James wrote on May. 30, 2010 @ 04:34 GMT
Kate, I am a visual person and I LOVE the way you explained difficult and hard to understand information!

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 30, 2010 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Ray,

Here is all about “good sense”. Discussion that universe is in a big hole is “spilling” water out of the glass of rational mind. We all know physical circumstances in a black hole………Math is a beautiful tool but without “good sense” can lead into “nowhere”….as is case here.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 30, 2010 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Amrit,

You said "We all know physical circumstances in a black hole………Math is a beautiful tool but without “good sense” can lead into “nowhere”….as is case here."

Do we really know what happens on the other side of a Black Hole event horizon? Does 'infinity' really exist at its core? I think that understanding Black Holes is the key to understanding the origin of mass, gravity and hyperspace. I know that my model is complex, but if this problem of 'mass' was a simple one, we would already have experimental confirmation of our ideas. Standard Higgs theory is far too simple to be 100% correct.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 30, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT
p.s. - "Fullerene" is an allotrope of Carbon (Carbon-60 is a special case). Sir Harry Kroto shared a 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize for the discovery of Carbon-60. He and I live in the same neighborhood (of course, he has the nicer house on the lake). Regardless of how these names may sound, they are serious science.

Likewise, John Archibald Wheeler coined the term "Black Hole", although the concept predated him. I was a grad student at Texas (Austin) when Wheeler was a Professor there. He was a brilliant man, and his ideas don't deserve being made fun of.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 30, 2010 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Ray

in black hole matter transforms in quanta of space. In outher space "quanta of space" QS get formed in "cosmic rays" - fundamental quanta that build up matter.

This flow of energy "matter-space-matter-space" in a dynamic equilibrium, universe is eternal....no beginning, no end. Eternity is NOW.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


BuffaloMildew wrote on May. 30, 2010 @ 23:53 GMT
Interesting

report post as inappropriate


Michael Merry wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 00:27 GMT
Interesting stuff! A few points:

>Many theoretical physicists do not believe it makes sense to talk about 'time before the BB'. Sort of like asking what is south of the south pole.

>Scale problem: One is tempted to question how a 3-100 solar mass black hole can be the progenitor of a universe! If, on the other hand, the universe is a 'mega-black hole' then space-time must be closed, something that seems impossible to prove.

>If physicists expect to win significant support for this neutrino condensate theory, they may need to determine exactly how neutrinos contribute to dark matter/dark energy, and then show that such contribution has anti-gravity properties consistent with the known expansion rate of the universe.

To my mind, these speculations are stretching credibility to the limit

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 02:37 GMT
My theory concerning the black hole = big bang. We created ourselves, humans eventually created a black hole which in turn created the universe, time is a cycle until we create the blackhole once more and recreate the universe. Why do we have dejavu?

report post as inappropriate


Hans Koster wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 13:20 GMT
My compliments on the style of writing. The article was a pleasure to read.

Concerning the content I was surprised to learn that finally someone has found a way out of the impossible Big Bang Singularity concept.

As we go back in time, so we are told, distances between galaxies lessen, and if we continue long enough, 13,7 billion years or so, we reach a singularity. But the only reason we go back that far, is we don't know of any mechanism that puts a hurdle in the way. This idea of a neutrino condensate could be just wat we need here, so we don't have to retreat any further and can avoid reaching the awkward singularity.

What remains is to find out exactly where this hurdle is situated in time, what caused it and what came before. Delicious food for some serious thought!

report post as inappropriate

Jacques Lapeyre replied on May. 31, 2010 @ 16:34 GMT
You know I've always wondered why people find a problem with the singularity. Admittedly it's a bad term for the universe at that stage because it implies an external dimension. This is just a result of our looking at the dimension of extension as a quality divorced from quantum reality. If you simply readjust your idea of "space" to a field of quantum interaction you can see that all dimension really is is a mathematical field indicating what particles interact with which and how much. The decrease in interaction just creates the illusion of dimension. Quantum entanglement I think is a good clue that space is just a force of ordinary quantum interaction.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 2, 2010 @ 00:47 GMT
Gravity fields change neutrino oscillations. So am I correct in saying that the role of gravitation plays a role in how the CKM matrix is a local operator in curved spacetime? The heuristic about the rocking boat makes me think this has something to do with a connection between quantum gravity and neutrino physics.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2010 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Do gravity fields change neutrino oscillations, or is it the fact that neutrinos have mass that allows these eigen-states to mix in a manner consistent with the PMNS matrix? You mentioned the CKM matrix, and I think there is a relationship between CKM and PMNS (I mentioned it in my book, and in "A Case Study..."), but I do not think they are (or should be) the same matrix.

I think we have a tachyon (not neutrino) condensate on the M2-brane near the Black Hole core. Because neutrinos have mass, they cannot travel fast enough to explain action-at-a-distance phenomena - in fact, they are more limited than photons, whereas tachyons (with imaginary mass) clearly can.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 3, 2010 @ 01:58 GMT
The neutrino mass matrix, or PMNS matrix, does transform under local spacetime transformaions --- or equivalently gravity. I suppose I could do some digging on my own here, but the intention here appears to be about deriving a relationship between spacetime physics near a singularity and neutrino physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Vidyardhi Nanduri wrote on Jun. 7, 2010 @ 15:05 GMT
Sub: Cosmology Concepts - Blackhole misnomer Big-Bang and Blackhole Concepts do not satisfy 1.Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology 2.Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows 3.Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony Cosmology Vedas Interlinks help to search for Origins. The Universe is projected under Cosmic Pot and Down under near Milky way, one needs to see Shaded Universe -searching for Prime cncepts.The Invisible an Visiblematrix mode automatically integrtes to the Glow Universe. See Cosmology Definition and Cosic pot Universe -STSCi-May 2003 -my paper http://cosmology_definition.rediffblogs.com/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/17291010/COSMOLOGY-VEDAS-INTERLINK
SBOOKS-INFORMATION Vidyardhi Nanduri

report post as inappropriate


Alien-Citadel wrote on Jun. 8, 2010 @ 13:45 GMT
Well its possible that universe existed before the big bang but it still doesn't explain the the near mass-lessness of the neutrinos in our universe. I think the universe was created by Aliens who were like....mother-neutrinos and gave rise to the present neutrino clan. Just visit this site for the the true story of about the birth of the Universe

report post as inappropriate


Cahyana Endra Purnama wrote on Jun. 26, 2010 @ 06:06 GMT
Here I want to share about my theological point for this topic of vlack hole. For the first time I heard about it was in 1989, when a pastor preached it in front of theological students, at the Tyranus Bible Institute, Indonesia. There I was so impressed with just a simple explanation about this difficult and looks like absurd for non-scientific attendants. Simply, this is an creative way of the Great Creator of the universe in order to make its constant existence for eternal entity. End time ministry for lay people in the church has much concerned on this 'scientific' foundation of the Creator to make them put their faith with a full scientifi base

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Hello dear Cahyana Endra Purnama,

Could you elaborate a little please ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
In my humble opinion, a real scientific base is essential.

The sciences have the solutions.

Thta's why I work about the creation of an International Humanistic Sciences Center....focus on priorioties for our fellow men.....unification of universalists,scientists,ideas,NGOs,....it's simple and evident.

This center will be "UNIFIED SPHERE INSTITUTE."

Friendly and universally

Steve

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 20:46 GMT
"Is our universe housed in a blackhole?"

Well yes if you calculate the present_time, "now" to be external to the BH horizon,and beyond the Horizon to be either the Past or Future?

Conversely internal to the BH horizon, and looking outwards (if one could percieve this event)then it must be percieved by an internal observer as the definate past?

Is a blackhole the nearest thing to the "future"?..is our everyday expereince of past>present>>future really nothing more than equivilence of falling into blackholes? Our transformations from existing "now"..to existing "then/future_"now", maybe because of local blackholes, the hidden "actual" variables in spacetime.

The reason I am here today,is because sometime between yesterday and today, everything local to myself and including me!..tranversed across an hidden BH horizon, actually everything except a little bit of information?..example a close neighbour passses away, although still here, her/his body will degrade a little upon every 24hr cycle (the time signature is not important, but the event signature is) until all evidence of her/his existence locally is eradicated/erased?

If I wake tomorrow and pretty nuch everything of my daily existence is the same, or as nearest damn it!..then I can conclude my transformation from yesterday to today was pretty much uneventful. But interestingly, I know that somewhere in my future's path, there will be a neutrino bullet with my name on it!

This neutrino may interject with a passing proton close to my atoms, this proton may then seek out a stray electron in one of my molocules, which will alter the structure of surrounding cells, thus my future encounter with the blackhole horizons will have a more dramatic outcome?

Neutrinos may be the dealer in the game of death..life? distributing matter to future from the past by altering the event of "now".

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 01:38 GMT
The universe is not inside a black hole. For one thing black holes have a Weyl curvature component that diverse as one approaches the singularity. This produces tidal motion. A spherical shell of particle falling onto a central gravity field becomes distended into a prolate ellipsoid and stretches out into a cigar shape and then gets spagettified. So an observer on a frame moving with other infalling and noninteracting particles (here thought of as galaxies) would observe something odd. Along two antipodal directions, towards and away from the black hole these galaxies would be redshifted. However, along a plane perpendicular to that axis one would see galaxies blue shifted or moving towards you. These we do not observe. The universe is not a black hole, or inside a black hole.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Is Hyperspace inside a Black Hole?

report post as inappropriate


Sameet Rajguree wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
@Lawrence

I think you're focusing too much on the actual superficial physics/characteristics of a black hole. This theory explores the possibilities of what lies on the "other side" of a black hole, not that the our universe exists "inside" of a black hole. (Two very different things.) I like to think of a black hole as a marker in space and time--a galactic postal address if you will.

report post as inappropriate


Johnston Hues IV wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 14:18 GMT
Lawrence, I'm sorry dear chap, but you simply have no imagination. Yes, conventional physics can explain many things, but it doesn't yet explain everything...

Beg to dream.

Cheers,

JH4

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 17:50 GMT
plus, he's a badass sax player!

report post as inappropriate


Johnston Hues IV wrote on Jul. 11, 2010 @ 03:20 GMT
Why thank you my dear Mr. Anonymous. I must admit, I am quite the debonaire saxophone player.

JH4

report post as inappropriate


Marino Mangone wrote on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 01:53 GMT
When are all the people/scientist in all fields going to start to work together, instead of thinking of their own little "box". We will always be in a "box", unless we all start working as one to find a way out.

Either that or we are already out of it (box) and need to find a way back in?

Time does not need space to exist, but space needed time to be able to exist.

The secrect to all is the nothingness between all.

1 or i (or what ever symbol you want to use to)positive or negative can only be, if you have it in the first place to be able to build upon.

report post as inappropriate


Mikey wrote on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 02:32 GMT
Ya know, Tom VanAcker wrote a book called General Unified Theory about 5 years ago. His theory's base started with a Universe in a Black Hole and continued in great detail how this can occure. I don't believe Nikodem Poplawski was the first to come up with this.

report post as inappropriate


Carmen Putrino wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
I believe everyone has everything backward. Imagine an expanding universe filled with light elements, like hydrogen. Then, several rips appear in the universe and the light elements move towards the holes. We now have many, many stars. Now suppose a few larger rips appear in the universe. Well, all the stars move to these larger holes and begin swirling and draining into the holes. So, many galaxies form.

So, it’s not matter which creates stars, galaxies, and black holes. It’s the ‘holes’ that create stars, galaxies, and whatever the bigger rips are destined to create.

carmen_putrino@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 05:57 GMT
Prior to this universe was the big crunch and that is a Godel universe which is contradictory in time time runs backward.

A rotating black hole in a Godel universe can have the penrose equation reversed for it then contradictory maths becomes non contradictory for the begining of our universe.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 23:03 GMT
We were wrong every time we thought we had find the "entire" (Earth, Solar S., Milk Way). What suggests this time we are finally correct thinking our backyard-universe is the the whole?

Mother-Nature has never made anything unique in kind (there is not an ONLY athom, an only planet, star, galaxy etc..)

So, what chances are that our local "Universe" be the entireness? By my point of view, none at all.

There is no space for more details here, but I'll say the essential:

- The Cosmos/Nature is something very paradoxical, and the cartesian mind is not enough to perceive it correctly.

It's difficult to accept that the Cosmos has no beginning, no end, is infinite both in time and space, is infinitely fractal, with infinite class of dimensions, infinitely nested. In short: Is something that is, being not & isn't, being.

That approach confound our minds and provoke rejections.

Even though, is that what is seams to be...

report post as inappropriate


Basil Altaie wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
As for the Black Hole Universe it might be useful to see the following article

[record/827653]

report post as inappropriate


DURGADAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 27, 2016 @ 13:11 GMT
The balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universes on opposite entropy path published in year 2003 has actually predicted that the outer antimatter universe is turning into a black hole gradually due to opposite entropy path. As such our universe is inside a black hole which is turning into a black hole. See the attached paper.

attachments: 2_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism._1.doc, 2_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htm

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'H' and 'J':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.