01 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseWould it be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little universe? My understanding of black holes is that information isn't actually 'lost'. It just gets swallowed up and thoroughly ground up, so that even if it could be 'seen' it would be completely unrecognizable.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html
With this new theory they show at the 'center' of black holes, information is not lost and it does not compress to infinity but starts another universe.
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThat would depend on the dimensionality of the new universe. There is some deep connection with the very small and the very large and it might be that the inside of a black hole, if we could view it, could be filled with stars and planets and life but still be the size of a proton in our universe.
Would it be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little universe? My understanding of black holes is that information isn't actually 'lost'. It just gets swallowed up and thoroughly ground up, so that even if it could be 'seen' it would be completely unrecognizable.
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseHow is this science? I think it belongs under the science-fiction category.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html
With this new theory they show at the 'center' of black holes, information is not lost and it does not compress to infinity but starts another universe.
The instructor
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou say, "it might be" ..... Science fiction?
That would depend on the dimensionality of the new universe. There is some deep connection with the very small and the very large and it might be that the inside of a black hole, if we could view it, could be filled with stars and planets and life but still be the size of a proton in our universe.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseRJ's got a point on this one, theories of quantum gravity are speculative, essentially because there is no feasible way of doing an experiment. As far as I know no-one's ever directly detected a gravitational wave. Observation of the orbital decay of binary neutron stars provide the only evidence they exist. So the only reason to even think trying to quantize gravity is the right thing to do is quantum theory's success in describing the other forces. Although given the behaviour of 2-D gravity (where baby universes proliferate), and as one would expect the singularity from the classical theory to be smeared out at the plank scale their result's more than reasonable.
To you, computers are science fiction. Should never have been invented, using that evil science. Put the genie back in the bottle, we don't need no stinking science.
One question springs to mind - if every black hole is the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOr for that matter, when a baby black hole evaporates. They are getting closer to the sensitivity needed to detect gravity waves, maybe in 5 years they will make their first detect. Then it's a new ball game.
RJ's got a point on this one, theories of quantum gravity are speculative, essentially because there is no feasible way of doing an experiment. As far as I know no-one's ever directly detected a gravitational wave. Observation of the orbital decay of binary neutron stars provide the only evidence they exist. So the only reason to even think trying to s the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
RJ: The thing about scientific speculation, even if it is wrong, it makes other people think and sometimes side issues turns into real usable physics. So any work like this, even if it is a dead end can lead to new discoveries.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt could mean those two gateways might become one gateway into two baby universes. Or it could mean both gateways become closed. Two doors leading into one room makes sense, but one door leading into two rooms? Maybe those baby universes merge as well.
One question springs to mind - if every black hole is the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
When baby universes grow up and have little black holes of their own, they can become parents of the next generation of little baby universes.
15 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI think he misread the title to Mcluhan's book "the medium is the message'. He Gerold says the medium is the massage.🙂
More on Quantum physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI
The Instructor
The basic gist of his argument is the idea our universe is extremely fine tuned to allow life. This is a fact. The only thing he want to show is that makes our universe something special, only could have been made by some intelligence, deliberate so we could exist.
The answer to that is the idea there are many universes. The many universe idea says our universe came about because of luck basically. Other universes may exist where the speed of light is one mile an hour. So some universes, our kind of matter, the whole ball of wax of our universe, including dark matter, dark energy, the expansion speed up 5 billion years ago, that whole deal, is just luck because in the multiverse theory (readily admitted to be theory). He mentions the mulitverse idea but doesn't believe it.
BTW, he talks about time spans of millions of years so he does not believe the universe is 10,000 years old. You picked the wrong horse in your insane desire to destroy evolution.
He understands full well how matter came into being and it does not include being made in 10,000 years. He is a scientist, no doubt, and you have to respect that. Scientists still have agenda's and his is to reconcile religion with science. He talks about Scientific American as THE most respected science journal in the world but that is not so. It might be the most respected POPULIZER of science but they are basically reporters of science and I love that rag but the new stuff is in rags like Nature and others, the magazines where each article is peer reviewed for some accepted view of some science. Scientific American is in the business of selling magazines, unlike Nature which charges an arm and a leg where the subscribers pay the bills. Advertisers pay the bills for Scientific American.
His timeline of the Cambrian explosion is not quite accurate. The Cambrian explosion came about because of the biggest extinction in the history of Earth. When old life forms die off and only 10% lives, it opens up the possibility of new life evolving to fill that former niche of older life and there WAS multicellular life forms before the Cambrian explosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
His final statement just shows he believes a god made the universe and therefore other universes cannot exist, that god made THIS universe and this universe only.
That of course is another case that cannot be falsified and is therefore not science but religious based believe. The guy is smart no doubt about that but even smart people get deceived all the time. He is no different on that score. The fact he wears a kippah shows his religious conviction in spite of his real world scientific credentials. He has cognitive dissonance big time.
His only real statement about religion is to say god deliberately made our universe and time started 14 billion years ago just like we have shown and he has no problem with that, just the origin of the universe was made by a god.
That by definition, is religion, not science. He explains the science behind the universe rather well, except the part where he thinks only single cell life forms existed before the Cambrian explosion. He may well have made that video before newer data came out about multicellular life before the Cambrian.
You still picked the wrong horse, he KNOWS the universe is 14 odd billion years old not 14 thousand years old. A mere difference of a million to one.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseHe just happens be wrong on the age of the universe. But that is a side issue that I have addressed before.
I think he misread the title to Mcluhan's book "the medium is the message'. He Gerold says the medium is the massage.🙂
The basic gist of his argument is the idea our universe is extremely fine tuned to allow life. This is a fact. The only thing he want to show is that makes our universe something special, only could have been made by some intelligence, ...[text shortened]... 14 odd billion years old not 14 thousand years old. A mere difference of a million to one.
The Instructor