19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by laur3ttaAnd your proof is?
a proton is a subatomic particle. As a universe is infinitely bigger than a proton as far as we are concerned, no universes are in a proton
For instance, it is thought black holes house an entire universe with its own time scale inside, the implication being there are other universes.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseTo accept this, one has to redefine the word - 'universe'.
For instance, it is thought black holes house an entire universe with its own time scale inside, the implication being there are other universes.
One definition of universe is 'All there is'.
This definition doesn't support the idea of a universe within a black hole just because this black hole universe resides totally within ours.
To make the discussion of this matter continue we have to have a better definition of 'universe' in order to make it a meaningful diskussion.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasThats the interesting thing about at least the theory of black holes, the inside cuts itself off from our universe and starts another.
To accept this, one has to redefine the word - 'universe'.
One definition of universe is 'All there is'.
This definition doesn't support the idea of a universe within a black hole just because this black hole universe resides totally within ours.
To make the discussion of this matter continue we have to have a better definition of 'universe' in order to make it a meaningful diskussion.
The definition of universe in that case is what you might call universe bubbles embedded in a higher order dimensional matrix, whatever that number may turn out to be, say 5 dimensions at minimum since we already have 4. String and M brane theory suggests 10 or 11 dimensions, testable btw, at least in part.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseIf we define 'universe' as an entity containg a full set of laws of physics - then I can't imagine that the volume inside a black hole can be a universe itself.
Thats the interesting thing about at least the theory of black holes, the inside cuts itself off from our universe and starts another.
The thougt that our universe is the content of another black hole the idea seems rediculous. If not there is two cinds of universes - one inside a black hole and one, completely different outside of a black hole.
What about the boundary between the two universes? In what universe resides this surface? And with what laws of physics do apply?
No, we can't call inside of a black hole as an universe of the same kind as our own universe.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasAccording so some theories, you are right about that, but the boundry to that place is called the event horizon, beyond which you are part of the inside of the black hole and permenantly disconnected from our universe, in fact, if you had instrumentation that could magically watch events in our universe, you would see our universe meet its destiny, all the while your univese would have its own disconnected time rate, that alone is a disconnect from our universe as we count time as one of the dimensions of space.
If we define 'universe' as an entity containg a full set of laws of physics - then I can't imagine that the volume inside a black hole can be a universe itself.
The thougt that our universe is the content of another black hole the idea seems rediculous. If not there is two cinds of universes - one inside a black hole and one, completely different outsi ...[text shortened]... o, we can't call inside of a black hole as an universe of the same kind as our own universe.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour working definition fits mine, a box with its own set of physics laws inside. That is what present theory says, there can be other boxes with its own set of laws, say places where the speed of light is one meter per second, or where the time scale compared to ours is a million times faster or a million times slower. The overall picture according to this kind of theory is called the 'Multiverse'.
If we don't agree what definition of the very fenomenon 'universe' is - then we don't know what we are talking about.
The key question before we can say anything is - "What is a universe?"
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot entirely. Theory has it these multiple universes have one connecting glue: gravity. According to these theories, gravity is so weak compared to magnetism for instance (a refrigerator magnet holds back the gravitational pull of the whole planet for example), precisely because it crosses dimensions, the power of gravity thus becomes shared by all these dimensions and therefore each set of dimensions only feels a shared piece of the power of gravity. I suspect that makes for an open door between dimensions for sufficiently advanced civilizations. Just a personal speculation.
So the universes are isolated from each other?
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, this theory is not more than speculations. And should be treated as such. As a brain-teaser over a hefty glass of beer for physicists theoreticans local pub, inside or outside university campus.
Not entirely. Theory has it these multiple universes have one connecting glue: gravity. ... Just a personal speculation.
A complete universe inside of black hole? No way in my humble opinion.
But the discussion is fun.
20 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere are testable ramifications to the gravity spread amongst dimension theory which is being vigorously tested as we speak.
Well, this theory is not more than speculations. And should be treated as such. As a brain-teaser over a hefty glass of beer for physicists theoreticans local pub, inside or outside university campus.
A complete universe inside of black hole? No way in my humble opinion.
But the discussion is fun.
You of course know about Newtonian gravity, inverse square law and all that. Theory has it, if other dimensions are embedded in our dimension but are hidden, say by being rolled up like a plank length sized rug, then as two objects get extremely close, the inverse square law will break down and change, don't remember if its supposed to get weaker than inverse square or stronger but at any rate, there will be a change in the inverse square curve. So far they have built accurate devices that measures that law down to one tenth of a millimeter, or 100 microns, 1000 microns=one millimeter, and so far no split from Newton. That null result begins to chop out alternate theories but still there may be differant results if you can measure down to 10 microns or maybe 1 micron and that is where the experimentalists are pushing. Its very difficult to do accurately though. If you are interested,here is a link to that work:
http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/REU/2002/People/Searing_P/ISLpaper.pdf