07 Mar 15
Originally posted by woadmanAnd further, if true, it could be OUR universe was what they call a 'white hole' where we are the other side of a black hole in another universe. They say the parent universe would engender slightly different versions of physics in our universe than in the parent. So the parent might have the speed of light be 187,000 miles per second but ours clocks in at 186242. That kind of thing.
I've seen on the net that some Astrophysicist think Black holes are an entire Universes within the area of the black hole...could be !
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Mar 15
Originally posted by woadmanOld, speculative, and entirely unprovable. This isn't science, it's science fiction. (Granted, with a good writer, it could conceivably be good science fiction. Still isn't good science.)
I've seen on the net that some Astrophysicist think Black holes are an entire Universes within the area of the black hole...could be !
08 Mar 15
Originally posted by Shallow BlueHow do you know any different? The 11 dimensions needed for quantum mechanics is widely accepted now.
Old, speculative, and entirely unprovable. This isn't science, it's science fiction. (Granted, with a good writer, it could conceivably be good science fiction. Still isn't good science.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Mar 15
Originally posted by woadmanString theory needs more dimensions.
How do you know any different? The 11 dimensions needed for quantum mechanics is widely accepted now.
Plain old QM from the standard model does not require extra dimensions.
String Theory is not proven, and is but one hypothesis among many,
even if it is a popular one.
09 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by woadmanGeneral relativity is a good theory, in the sense that it predicts Newtons law of Gravity in the weak field limit and correctly accounts for a contribution to the precession of Mercury that would otherwise be unexplainable, as well as some other phenomena. Quantum mechanics is a good theory as it explains how electrons diffract, and gives Newton's laws of motion on macro-scopic scales.
How do you know any different? The 11 dimensions needed for quantum mechanics is widely accepted now.
The catch is that if you try to quantise gravity then it doesn't work. However, if you add a symmetry called Supersymmetry, which may or may not be a symmetry of Nature, and formulate it in eleven dimensions the theory comes out consistent. This means it's a very promising theory.
However, theories are just that. It hasn't been experimentally verified yet. No one has seen any of the other dimensions. So it's just a theory, albeit a promising one. My current feeling is that it'll be verified, if that ever becomes technologically possible. But it'll be a maximally supersymmetric version - the simpler ones have already been more-or-less ruled out.
09 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere is the ongoing experiment to directly detect extra curled up dimensions: the inverse square gravity test, where you look for variances from the inverse square law of gravity but at extremely close distances. Right now I think they are showing no change in the IS law down to 100 microns but they are working to extend that to an even closer distance, 10 microns.
General relativity is a good theory, in the sense that it predicts Newtons law of Gravity in the weak field limit and correctly accounts for a contribution to the precession of Mercury that would otherwise be unexplainable, as well as some other phenomena. Quantum mechanics is a good theory as it explains how electrons diffract, and gives Newton's laws ...[text shortened]... a maximally supersymmetric version - the simpler ones have already been more-or-less ruled out.
I think it constrains some theories about extra dimensions when you find no deviation at 10 microns.
10 Mar 15
1 edit
I know it's oversimplifying it a bit but I think black holes are drains, like a drain in a sink or bathtub. Einstein's general theory of relativity suggested that gravity is caused when something of incredible mass bends space and smaller objects roll around in that curved space. When the battle of the nuclear fusion vs. gravity eventually ends in favor of gravity, what's left is so heavy that it rips through the fabric of space, creating a hole or drain that everything else will be pulled in, like water in a sink. The back hole fills up until it cannot contain it anymore and explodes out the other side, creating another Big Bang and the beginning of another universe. Since the new universe will contain the same amount of matter and energy, everything will repeat again exactly the same way. Stars, planets, galaxies, quasars, even life itself, will happen at the same point in time as it did in all the previous universes. That feeling of deja vu we all feel sometimes is because we did do it before...countless times. We forget most of our previous lives because of the billions of years between them.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by blunderdogAlso. Billions of years between them. In a black hole time stops! It slows down as objects sink into the edge. Then, poof! No time anymore. No nothing. No 'information' passes to the black hole, hence it is black.
I know it's oversimplifying ... ... ... because of the billions of years between them.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by blunderdog... will repeat again exactly the same way.
I know it's oversimplifying it a bit but I think black holes are drains, like a drain in a sink or bathtub. Einstein's general theory of relativity suggested that gravity is caused when something of incredible mass bends space and smaller objects roll around in that curved space. When the battle of the nuclear fusion vs. gravity eventually ends in favor o ...[text shortened]... tless times. We forget most of our previous lives because of the billions of years between them.
If we - in life "2" - remember something that happened in life "1", doesn't that make life "2" (slightly) different from life "1"?
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
10 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThen please explain quantum gravitation theory to me. What does it say? 🙂 As it is my information also comes from Hawking. He wrote a 2 books, perhaps more, those are the once I have read. I was 15 years old and who knows, perhaps I misunderstood, that happens quite often. I remember the "Hawking radiation" and his later proven wrong theory about mathematical foundations of the "big bang". But geniouses theories are sometimes only theories and often some of them do not stand the test of time. 🙂
Not according to quantum gravitation theory and Steven Hawking.
Do I stand corrected? Explain yourself.
I have personally had Hawking as a likely candidate to the Nobel Prize in Physics. But for that to happen, as is common for physics prize winners, they have to have discovered something which later have been proved beyound reasonably doubt. Possibly by several experiments. Experimental physics in black holes ... will it ever happen? I sure hope so but I don't think it will be in my lifetime.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's hard enough dealing with creationists missusing the word theory without scientists doing it as well.
General relativity is a good theory, in the sense that it predicts Newtons law of Gravity in the weak field limit and correctly accounts for a contribution to the precession of Mercury that would otherwise be unexplainable, as well as some other phenomena. Quantum mechanics is a good theory as it explains how electrons diffract, and gives Newton's laws ...[text shortened]... a maximally supersymmetric version - the simpler ones have already been more-or-less ruled out.
You meant it's not a theory and is just a hypothesis.