[Halc]

Sorry Halc but you are most definitely wrong in your thinking.

I have already given you the reference three times in this note.  Look at it.  It is a very well respected java tool.   http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

The calculator is computing something else. Wish there was a link explaining.
The disconnect seems to be explained in wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity#Black_holes

In relativity, the Newtonian concept of acceleration turns out not to be clear cut. For a black hole, which must be treated relativistically, one cannot define a surface gravity as the acceleration experienced by a test body at the object's surface. This is because the acceleration of a test body at the event horizon of a black hole turns out to be infinite in relativity. Because of this, a renormalized value is used that corresponds to the Newtonian value in the non-relativistic limit. The value used is generally the local proper acceleration (which diverges at the event horizon) multiplied by the gravitational time dilation factor (which goes to zero at the event horizon). For the Schwarzschild case, this value is mathematically well behaved for all non-zero values of r and M.

When one talks about the surface gravity of a black hole, one is defining a notion that behaves analogously to the Newtonian surface gravity, but is not the same thing. In fact, the surface gravity of a general black hole is not well defined. However, one can define the surface gravity for a black hole whose event horizon is a Killing horizon.

The bold is what I'm talking about (proper acceleration), but the K thing  that is in your calculator is defining something else, I think this "surface gravity of a static killing horizon", a term that's new to me.

I also found this on stack exchange:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109137/force-of-gravity-in-the-event-horizon
where an equation (expressed as force on mass m) is similar to the one in the calculator.

Question:
"... about the actual force (in Newtons) that an object with mass m would receive from a Black Hole with Schwarzschild radius if the object was on the Event Horizon"
Answer:
"Hi Peterix, your question has been answered here. – John Rennie Apr 20 '14 at 8:05

Where, I can't find it? Anyway is F=mc⁴/4GM right? – Peterix Apr 20 '14 at 9:17

No, it's F=ma=GMmr/r²  1/(√(1-2GM/c²r)) – John Rennie Apr 20 '14 at 9:25"

The latter equation I've seen expressed as the "proper acceleration of an object at time t relative to an observer in free fall, who is momentarily at rest w.r.to the object (being held at the horizon) at time t.

Anyway, the 1550 g acceleration (any finite number) cannot be proper acceleration since as I pointed out, any object capable of more acceleration than that can escape from the event horizon, which would be a contradiction.
Not sure what exactly that represents in the calculator since no link is associated with the equation. It seems to be perhaps the acceleration as measured in a different (non-comoving??) coordinate system. We're both correct, but talking about different things.  As wiki points out, acceleration at that point isn't clear cut.

The event horizon is at the point where the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of light.

This makes it sound like things could move from inside to outside, but lacking escape velocity, they would eventually fall in. If true, this would violate the actual definition of an event horizon which is any boundary where events on one side can never have causal effect on events on the other.

Gravitational acceleration is not directly related to escape velocity

A ship can escape Earth without ever reaching escape velocity. It just needs continuous acceleration, not even as much acceleration as the local gravity field. OK, it obviously eventually exceeds escape velocity as the escape velocity drops to less than the slow ship speed.  So I agree that escape velocity has little to do with it.

Coming to your spaceship analogy
The most efficient propulsion system possible is that created by converting mass directly into energy of acceleration

This depends heavily on how one defines efficiency, but I agree. They have Ion engines that do pretty much this, but they totally lack power. Efficiency isn't going to get you the 1550g you suggest. You need power, however inefficient.  A railgun is perhaps up to the task.  Not trying to get an object to escape the gravity well.  Just trying to move it one meter from inside to outside. That shouldn't be possible even in principle (as it would be shooting something into the past) but if there is a mere 1550g gravity there, that is easily exceeded.

Your reply mostly references practical limitations, which don't refute the argument.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Halc  You are still thinking incorrectly.  The reference you give from Wikipedia refers to what you would "see"and measure from a distant viewpoint as things vanished into the event horizon.  I am not talking about that.  What you see from a distance is not what is observed by the particles falling through a gravitational Field.

The viewpoint I am taking is what you would see and measure if you were travelling along with the particles and observing what is happening to other particles nearby,  True there are relativistic effects but they are not as severe from this viewpoint and things are much more "normal" and understandable and are in fact what is really going on.

Please remember that one of the most misunderstood fundamental truths about relativity is that things always look normal to you and anything else that is travelling at non relativistic velocities.   In the classic twin experiment both of the twins would say that time appeared to pass at a perfectly normal rate even though there may be a considerable difference in the the elapsed times shown by the clocks that they were both carrying.

let us now try to come to some points of agreement.

I presume that you agree that the radial position of the black hole event horizon in a spherical gravitational field created by an isolated (point) mass is defined by the point where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light according to the inverse square law  The rest of the properties follow simply from this according to the reference that I gave you.

[Halc]

Halc  You are still thinking incorrectly.  The reference you give from Wikipedia refers to what you would "see"and measure from a distant viewpoint as things vanished into the event horizon.

It is not. I'm talking about proper acceleration.  It being infinite means that no amount of acceleration will allow an object to escape a black hole once it's at the even horizon. No force can hold it in place. According to your finite figure, if it were the proper acceleration required, there is such a force, and the event horizon can be escaped utilizing said greater acceleration.

am not talking about that.  What you see from a distance is not what is observed by the particles falling through a gravitational Field.

A particle falling in any gravitational field 'observes' no proper acceleration at all, per the equivalence principle.  If it did, it wouldn't be falling.

The viewpoint I am taking is what you would see and measure if you were travelling along with the particles and observing what is happening to other particles nearby

Yes, the finite value you speak is that. It isn't proper acceleration. I actually am not familiar with the meaning of the formula referenced since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity. Hawking can clarify.

let us now try to come to some points of agreement.

I presume that you agree that the radial position of the black hole event horizon in a spherical gravitational field created by an isolated (point) mass is defined by the point where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light according to the inverse square law

Yes, that gets you the Schwarzschild radius according to the escape velocity formula, which isn't particularly an inverse square law.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Yes, that gets you the Schwarzschild radius according to the escape velocity formula,

Ah  I think I now understand the problem in our communication.  This is the meaning of the term "event horizon".

When I say event horizon I mean the Schwarzschild radius for a simple isolated non rotating black hole.  That is the point at which no further communication to a distant observer is possible. This is more complex in the Kerr or rotating case

since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity

It appears you are talking about what happens near a theoretical "singularity"  my arguments are essentially that this never happens.

What prevents it from happening.  In the first simple arguments it is just that a stasis can be reached via the energy outflow caused by the increasing gravity gradient at the "surface" (hawking radiation) overcomes the energy created by any further contraction towards the singularity.  I tend to equate this with what other writers have called the quantum firewall.

If we can get over this impasse we can work towards a proper discussion of the main thesis involving more realistic rotating (Kerr) black holes dealing with dimensionality and how the time like collapse of space towards the "linear" singularity of a Kerr black hole (the new time) and the three dimensional expansion space-like  time (space) can result in an expanding universe similar to ours dominated by antimatter and not matter as ours is. 

That is that alternate generations of an evolutionary cosmology are matter and antimatter dominated.

Maybe then I can even go on to present the predicted observations that could be made to help to confirm that this thesis may be correct or prove it incorrect

[Halc]

When I say event horizon I mean the Schwarzschild radius for a simple isolated non rotating black hole.  That is the point at which no further communication to a distant observer is possible. This is more complex in the Kerr or rotating case

I mean that as well. Computation of the event horizon is more complicated given charge and rotation and such, but in the end the concept is the same.  If the gravity at the horizon is 1550g's, then communication is possible by an object which has finite force enough to accelerate it at 2000 g's, and it thus isn't an event horizon.  Emphasis on 'possible' above.

since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity

It appears you are talking about what happens near a theoretical "singularity"  my arguments are essentially that this never happens. What prevents it from happening.  In the first simple arguments it is just that a stasis can be reached via the energy outflow caused by the increasing gravity gradient at the "surface" (hawking radiation) overcomes the energy created by any further contraction towards the singularity.  I tend to equate this with what other writers have called the quantum firewall.

Kind of over my head. I know the firewall as one possible solution to a unitarity paradox. I'm only a novice at quantum field theory, so I won't be much use in the discussions. I'm speaking about the geometry of the black hole and nature of spacetime for hypothetical events enclosed by the event horizon.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

You are incorrect Halc and what you say is easily disproved.

It is obvious that from this point particles cannot be launched with sufficient energy to escape and similarly light cannot escape  it is after all a black hole.

But consider a spaceship trying to accelerate away from there even if it could manage the thrust needed ?
This is done with a simple total energy calculation that is independent of the method used to generate thrust.
Any particle falling freely from a great distance directly towards the black hole would have gained one rest mass of energy as it passed the horizon at something less than the speed of light.  ie Mgh +Mv²  ie Mc² where h is very big
That comes from integrating the inverse square law to this point .

It follows that it requires the input of one rest mass as defined by E= M.c²
So for every unit of mass you need the energy contained in another unit of mass to escape, but every unit of mass you add to your space ship you require another, so the ship cannot ever get out "under its own steam".

The real point I am trying to make at this stage of the argument is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Scwartschild radius it is just somewhere in space near a big mass that particles can only travel through in one direction.

Once we can get over this we can then proceed to a worthwhile discussion.

I think that I will express the main points what I am trying to describe in a different way 

After more than 20 years hard work on this topic having arguments with myself as to how to describe the concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology and failing to get others to understand what I am talking about I have tried a lot of different approaches.

There are several other approaches in http:/iankimber.pbworks.com   

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 0 of 10

Background to an evolutionary cosmology concept

I hope these notes help to provide a bit of the background thinking to the evolutionary cosmology theseis

Fundamental physics currently appears to be rather bogged down in a vast and complex array of potential theories produced by mathematical modelling.  What is needed is some way of creating some sort of guide as to how an area of theories that can be explored at a greater depth.  Some sort of physical insight will probably be needed to focus studies in the most productive directions.

It is also known that the laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow stars to make complex atoms that then explode to distribute these to catalyse the formation of stars and stellar mass black holes.  This thinking is most definitely not anthropic in origin.   It is probably purely coincidental that the availability of complex atoms and complex chemistry at modest temperatures this also allows intelligent and self aware life like ours to evolve.

The  concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology introduces a potentially disprovable idea that might help to stimulate  some new areas of study for theoretical physicists and cosmologists.  This might just help to unblock this impasse even if a lot of what is presented here is incorrect. 

The concept of an evolved universe has already been introduced by Lee Smolin in this book  "The Life Of The Cosmos"  where he suggests that the physical laws are balanced in a way that maximises the creation of black holes.  This takes this idea further and suggests the processes that might have allowed this to happen and makes initial suggestions as to how some aspects may be tested.

The first and most critical aspect of the concept is that the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon (the Schwarzschild radius or Kerr radii for rotating black holes) to create the theoretical singularity at its centre will during this process release an infinite quantity of gravitational energy.

This is in some ways similar to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in electromagnetic theory which predicted unlimited energy coming from an unlimited electromagnetic collapse  This lead to the development of quantum theory in the first place and has therefore stimulated studies into generating quantum gravity by mathematical synthesis.  This approach suffers from the similar problems of many possibilities like fundamental particle string theory.

Although I personally see no reason not to consider the potential gravitational interactions at frequencies in a reasonable number of space-time dimensions where gravitational wave energies defined by the plank constant are similar to the rest masses of the particles.  OK I fully appreciate the scales will be fantastically small and well within the Planck scale of things but this could provide some insight.  It is also possible that these scales may also be the scales involved in the evolutionary cosmology proposals.

At the moment I am working on putting some reasonable numbers into these ideas.

There is also one other important reference that I would like to quote in relation to these ideas  this concerns the available dimensionalities of space time for reasonably metastable long lived universes.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Appendix 1

On the dimensionality of space-time

The Dimensionality of a potentially metastable and long lived universe
 
This is an important paper on this topic
 
“On the dimensionality of space-time”      By Max Tegmark 

Go to the link for the important image which is also attached below.  I have included the abstract and some further comments below
 
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf
 
Abstract. Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy limit corresponding to classical spacetimes with different dimensionalities. We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one might correspond to ‘dead worlds’, devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. With more or less than one time dimension, the partial differential equations of nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers to make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures. A space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational force and may be too simple and barren to contain observers.
 
     Additional comment
This concept is a vital trigger for the possibility of the matter - antimatter oscillation concept in the black hole evolutionary universe.  The important aspect of of CPT conservation is that a collapsing universe of matter by CPT transformation is turned into an expanding universe of antimatter.  The quoted description of Tachyons ( matter particles travelling faster than light)  is just another way of looking at antimatter  that is particles travelling backwards through time.  This gets over one of the more fundamental criticisms that is how does this concept obey the laws of thermodynamics which would apply in any universe.
 
 
The relationship between dimensionality and conservation laws
 
Noethers Theorem (QV)   demonstrates that symmetries define conservation laws notably  translational  and rotational symmetry require the conservation of energy and angular momentum respectively
 
Energy conservation laws constrain the laws relating to the forces associated with long range fields based on the local dimensionality.  The classic inverse square law for gravity and electric fields is because we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions because the surface area of a sphere around a point increases as the square of the radius.  This defines the way the radiated energy is spread out as one moves away from the point source.  I have used the term "local dimensionality"  because most root cosmological theories envisage larger numbers of dimensions (possibly infinite) at the most fundamental levels of the bulk from which universes originate.
 
This can be seen in the cases of pseudo restricted dimensionality. For a source which is an “infinite” line we have only two local dimensions  and the energy is spread over the perimeter.  This becomes a simple inverse law and for an infinite plane flat surface radiator this spreading becomes a constant because the energy does not fall off.   This produces the reciprocal relationships in string theory.
 
Expanding this concept to more than three dimensions implies that the fields fall off as the number of dimensions less one;  for example, the case of four dimensions results in an inverse cube falloff of force with distance.  Inverse cube and higher laws do not allow stable orbits to form although other sorts of resonances may be possible.  As the dimensionality gets higher the and the inverse power laws related to force get higher the tendency to collapse to a singularity or a lower dimensionality becomes greater if there is any disturbance on total uniformity.   In all cases total uniformity is an unstable equilibrium and any disturbance causes expansion or collapse.
 
The inverse square law is the only one that allows reasonably stable orbits to form.  Any variation from this results in collapse or breakup of an orbit with the slightest disturbance from its metastable position.
 
The "relativity" of dimensions.
 
There is a strong tendency to consider our dimensions of space and time as sacrosanct and immutable.  This I believe is a mistake they are local properties of our universe and do change as event horizons are crossed where space becomes time like and time expands and becomes space like.  On needs to free one's thinking in this respect and think of dimensions more in the way that communications and information theory treats them.  See A2 Insights from communications and information theory.
 
As in Einsteinian Relativity of time and space dimensions are themselves relative so new dimensions can expand without interfering with dimensions that collapse.
 

[CPT ArkAngel]

Soul Surfer,

According to your position, what would be the point of view of the particle inside the horizon in regards to the external universe? What does the particle would see?

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

The only information that particles inside the event horizon receive are of course other particles and photons falling through the horizon if they chance to interact with them.

Now if you were in a space ship that thad fallen into a quiet supermassive black hole as described in my example on reply 18 above and also reply 5  (page 6)  above. 
That is chosen  to avoid being fried by the energy of material trying to lose angular momentum to get across the event horizon and the excessive gravitational gradients that would tear you apart.
You would see absolutely nothing at all except for the very cold residual radiation due to the hawking radiation associated with the increasing gravitational gradient.   As you continued your fall this radiation would gradually increase as the gravitational gradient increased.    However you would be torn apart by the gravitational gradient long before things got too hot to deny you that experience!

You must remember   from  http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ to  get a hawking radiation temperature of 40 deg C from the gradient the radius of the black hole has to have shrunk to a mere 600 nanometers.

[Halc]

It is also known that the laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow stars to make complex atoms that then explode to distribute these to catalyse the formation of stars and stellar mass black holes.

Are said 'complex atoms' necessary for this?  I'm aware of the absurdly fine tuning of our universe, but it seems that all you need to make a black hole is some rudimentary 'stuff' that can gather close enough to form an event horizon.  Not as easy as it appears.  Something needs to make it slow down.  Dark matter seems to be predominant in the universe, but the stuff doesn't seem to form black holes on its own.  It requires additional forces (EM mostly) to gather mass into tight systems that might qualify as 'objects'.  There can be no accretion of dark matter, so it doesn't form noticable gravity wells, but it is still attracted to and contributes to the wells made by normal matter.

I bring up dark matter because it is a nice example of how 'stuff' might all behave if the tuning were a bit different.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Long lived Complex nuclei at least up to the complexity of iron (the last exothermal synthesis nucleus) are essential  for the development of stars as we know them today and the nucleosynthesis processes that lead to core collapse in supernovae that create black holes. 

If there were no stable nuclei beyond say lithium. Stars would be very different.  Smaller ones would fade out as the proton proton reaction ran out of fuel.  Large stars would evaporate to become smaller as the radiation pressure dispersed them by their stellar winds. 

The only black holes would be created by extreme mass stars (100s of solar masses) which can (in theory) collapse directly into black holes without first dispersing themselves by the pressure of the high radiation outflows.   

These conditions existed shortly after the end of the "dark ages" as the universe re-ionised although the large stellar winds seeded the universe with nuclei of carbon nitrogen and oxygen (ie created metallicy)  and allowed the standard population 1 stars (low metallicy) stars to form.  The sun is a population 2 star with a much higher metallicy.

We have not yet observed any of these high stellar mass primordial black holes all though a very high mass one (75 solar masses If I remember it right) has been observed in a binary star recently.

It is also essential to have a particularly accurately defined metastable resonance in a carbon nucleus (predicted originally by Fred Hoyle and later observed in fact to allow nucleosynthesis to jump the "beryllium gap" caused by the fact that 2 helium atoms do not have a metastable resonance to form an isotope of beryllium.

As all this involves bare nuclei in a very hot plasma.  The low temperature electron shell (chemical) interactions of carbon that are essential for life like us are totally irrelevant.

Another important aspect of the evolutionary cosmology concept is that the initial core collapse conditions from the Neutron (or possibly Quark) core star that that form a stellar mass black hole are probably quite precisely defined.  This happens when conditions exceed their version of the Chandrassakar limit in the formation of a white dwarf star.     This would in turn be expected to define quite precisely the size and properties of the emergent universe. 

So far I have been unable to find a good reference on this part of the process

[Halc]

Long lived Complex nuclei at least up to the complexity of iron (the last exothermal synthesis nucleus) are essential  for the development of stars as we know them today and the nucleosynthesis processes that lead to core collapse in supernovae that create black holes. 

All that might be essential to stars as we know them today, but none of it is essential to creation of black holes.  Pile up enough iron fry pans or used diapers and you get a black hole, with perhaps less bang wasting half the material.  All that nucleosynthesis process just seems to delay the process, and sometimes prevent it altogether.

If there were no stable nuclei beyond say lithium. Stars would be very different.  Smaller ones would fade out as the proton proton reaction ran out of fuel.  Large stars would evaporate to become smaller as the radiation pressure dispersed them by their stellar winds.

Large enough ones would just collapse after the fuel ran out.  In a universe where atoms are not fuel for any process at all, there would be no need for fuel to run out.  Just saying that there seems to be plenty of viable physics for creation of black holes since they're such simple things.  The complexity we see in starts needs the fine tuning, but not the black holes.

The only black holes would be created by extreme mass stars (100s of solar masses) which can (in theory) collapse directly into black holes without first dispersing themselves by the pressure of the high radiation outflows.

I actually am not very familiar with radiation pressures and such, but it seems like a poorly tuned universe wouldn't have the processes necessary to generate such radiation.

[Halc]

You are incorrect Halc and what you say is easily disproved.

Perhaps so, but you haven't done it. I think we're just talking about different things.

But consider a spaceship trying to accelerate away from there even if it could manage the thrust needed ?

It only has to move a centimeter, but you seem to be assuming it needs to achieve escape velocity on the spot.
The question askss what the gravity is at the surface of a black hole, which is sort of misleading because an event horizon isn't a surface.  But we can visualize the question by putting a strong shell around the mass and measuring the gravity (acceleration) at various radii of the shell.  Our answer is what that measurement will approach as the radius of the shell approaches the Schwarzschild radius, or rather as the circumference of the shell approaches that radius times 2π.  Radius itself is not directly meaningful.

And the answer to that problem I think lies in how that acceleration is measured, and one gives you your answer and one gives infinite.
Point is (first point anyway), there is no rocket, no energy requirement, no velocity, not even force. There's just a stationary accelerometer measuring the gravity in g's.

This is done with a simple total energy calculation that is independent of the method used to generate thrust.
Any particle falling freely from a great distance directly towards the black hole would have gained one rest mass of energy as it passed the horizon at something less than the speed of light.  ie Mgh +Mv²  ie Mc² where h is very big
That comes from integrating the inverse square law to this point .

Contemplating the energy of a falling thing seems pretty irrelevant.  Nothing is falling in the question at hand. Nothing is coming from or going to the zero potential energy. Nothing is trying to escape.

The real point I am trying to make at this stage of the argument is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Scwartschild radius it is just somewhere in space near a big mass that particles can only travel through in one direction.

Something can seemingly travel the other way if it is pushed/pulled hard enough.  A one gram object needs 15.3 newtons of force to achieve 1550 g's of acceleration.  So the object could be pulled out with a string that can withstand 16 newtons of force.  That's been my argument, and maybe it's wrong.  For instance it assumes that outward is a spatial direction, which is arguably not true, but how is 1550g's a meaningful value if the direction of the acceleration vector is not a spatial one?


So for now, consider a dense mass with gravitational time dilation factor of 10% at its surface.  A clock well away (but still a finite distance) measures 10 minutes for every 9 minutes on the clock on the surface.  Now built a tall tower on the surface reaching the upper clock, and dangle a weightless string from there back down to the surface.  Plop a 9-Newton weight on the string (something that weighs 9 Newtons on the surface).  What is the force at the top of the string at the tower?  Is it still 9 Newtons?  I don't think so. I suspect 10. We've build an accelerometer of sorts with this setup, and the two values are different (or are they?).  One seemingly violates the action having an equal and opposite reaction law, and the other answer seems to be able to implement reactionless thrust.  Therefore, is a force meter a valid form of accelerometer?  It can be done without force, such as timing an object as it is dropped from a small height. That method definitely yields different values for gravity for the two different reference frames.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Halc you are producing fatuous and not properly thought out arguments here for example in talking about pulling things out with strings what about the weight and strength of the string. 

I appreciate that you are one of the moderators here and have some knowledge of physics but i would really like to have a proper discussion with a good mathematical physicist well versed in gravitation and cosmology and not someone who has been blinded by a lot of the "gee whizz" presentations of many popular authors.

Can I recommend that you start by reading Roger Penrose  "The road to reality"  this should clear out a lot of your initial hangups on what after all is only the preamble for what I am trying to get over.  It provides a really good introduction to proper mathematical physics.  I have read it several times and use it as a reference on many topics.

In reality  the most fundamental message that I am trying to get over is that:-

Not thinking seriously about the physical processes that happen inside event horizons, as defined by the point at which the escape velocity from a gravitational felt of a body reaches the velocity of light and no more information other than hawking radiation,   is just the same as thinking that what is happening in our own universe at the moment is not interesting because thermodynamics tells us that everything will in our universe will end with the "heat death" and stasis.

I am in the process of creating a third approach to my concept of an evolutionary cosmology in which I will present the concept in a series of small logical and scientific steps together with a simple statement of the cosmological concept.

I am also developing a slightly modified Penrose Diagram illustrating the whole process ver simply.

I plan to post these here shortly.

[Bill S]

I’ve still not had time to look at this thread, but mention of Penrose and black holes makes me wonder if this, or the links from it, might not be reasonably on topic.

  https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-hole-singularities-are-as-inescapable-as-expected-20191202/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=124154e809-briefing-wk-20191206&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-124154e809-42120079

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

I am not by any means suggesting that black holes are escapable in our universe except that they could in theory evaporate by Hawking radiation over an incredibly vast time provided the universe was cold enough. 

Currently the microwave background is far too hot for any stellar mass or larger black hole to loose energy.

From the Hawking radiation calculator, for a black hole to have a Hawking radiation temperature equal to the 2.725 deg K background radiation it would have to have a mass of .00754 of the mass of the earth (4.5E19 metric tons) and have a radius of  6.6 micrometers.  So for a black hole to evaporate it must be smaller than this.

What I am suggesting is that the newly created  universe expands in totally different "spatial" dimensions that exist in our universe but are currently very small and "wrapped up".  These "wrapped up" dimensions are an accepted part of most string and cosmological theories.

If you look at the maths  the collapse of some dimensions leads to an expansion of others.  The simplest illustration is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle  as you squash the space dimension the time dimension becomes more uncertain and expands.

As you cross an event horizon and continue the collapse space becomes "time like" in its unidirectional progress towards the "singularity" and time becomes space like and expands to become multidimensional and multidirectional through uncertainty.  ref Penrose "The road to reality"

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Further work on this idea has been moved into the New theories area  go to

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78272.0

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

I have just realised that I had not answered a couple of important comments on this thread and must apologise for the wrong draft that has been posted up for a few days.

Firstly in reply to CPT Ark Angel  reply no 14 on 16 nov 2019.  I have tried to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting any sort of Anthropic principle.  Life as we experience it is just a fortuitous stable conditions and low temperature addition to the fact that complex nucleii are essential for the creation of conventional stellar mass black holes.

As far as dimensionality is concerned  I am suggesting 6 complex (two part) dimensions ie 12 in all of which only three of space and one of time are large scale dimensions and the remaining are compact and Co located with all the other extended dimensions.. Whether a dimension is "space like" or "time like" is flexible and an event horizon is the first stage in the transfer of space like to time like dimensions and vice versa.  This results in alternate expansions of the universe being dominated by matter and antimatter.  All the expanded matter particles have essentially a "counterpoise" of quantum entangled antimatter locked inside the collapsing co-located compact dimensions.   That is probably enough on that for the moment.

AS far as the number of critical parameters to form a universe like ours  I refer you to the excellent book "Just Six numbers"  By Martin Rees who points out how very few finely balanced constants define our universe.  There are several other good books on the same theme.

One other aspect of your comment seems to suggest that following on the lines I am suggesting os pointless.  I hope to answer these shortly but must go elsewhere now.