Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest45734 on 10/05/2018 12:55:07
-
Noddy Primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
Could a white hole be the cause of the original big bang?
Could white holes, in creating space, account for the apparent, accelerating expanding universe today?
Could the quantum fluctuations existing throughout all of space be a result of a white hole, and explain the HUP?
Could the expansion of space be attributed to a white hole emitting energy in an additional dimension all around us today?
Is the multiverse concept better explained by adding additional dimensions to space time. Could Energy escape from a Black Hole and reappear via another dimension as a White hole and drive the expansion of space.?
Sane answers only please :)
-
I am unclear as to whether "expansion of space can be rephrased as "expansion of volume" and whether that makes a difference.
-
I am unclear as to whether "expansion of space can be rephrased as "expansion of volume" and whether that makes a difference.
We are very familiar with space time dimensions, and volume. What if additional dimensions are not affected by space time except perhaps quantum fluctuations and the HUP??? The HUP borrows energy from somewhere, could it not be another dimension which is not space time or perhaps only influenced by time and not by space.
Does everyone accept there are additional dimensions? IF NOT WHY NOT?
Sane answers only please :)
-
After a bit of googling and reverting to Quora I found this answer
"
The Big Bang may not be different at all from a white hole.
It is true, as it is often pointed out, that a white hole singularity is a location in space, whereas the Big Bang is a moment in time. However, this distinction is valid only for observers who are outside the white hole’s event horizon. To those inside the event horizon, the singularity is, in fact, a “naked” singularity in time, in the past. And this observer would in fact experience a universe that appears to be governed by the same Friedmann equations that describe the homogeneous, isotropic Big Bang cosmology.
There is still another difference. Whereas inside the white hole event horizon, all world lines originate at the singularity, outside the event horizon there are world lines that have different origins or (depending on the nature of the surrounding universe) may have existed forever. In contrast, in a Big Bang universe, only those worldlines that originate at the singularity exist; there is no “outside”.
But observationally, at least at present, we don’t seem to have the means to distinguish the two. So it is conceivable that our Big Bang universe is, in fact, the interior of a white hole event horizon in a larger universe.
"
It seems I may be barking up the right tree.
How do we define space inside the event horizon of an expanding white hole.
White holes exist in the past, and black holes in the future, how does this come about?
-
How can you relate this to conservation of energy?
-
How can you relate this to conservation of energy?
Energy can not created or destroyed. Perhaps all BH's singularities are connected to a White Hole singularity which expands space all around us, via dark energy/quantum fluctuations. The Quantum fluctuations predicted by the Heisenburg uncertainty principle may be being caused by a white hole.
-
Could a white hole be the cause of the original big bang?
Einstein’s equations establish that white holes are mathematically possible; so this idea is on a better footing than, for example, the magic unicorn poking a hole in spacetime, thus causing a universe to appear. However, let’s not forget that there are many examples of things that “exist” mathematically, but may not, or do not exist in the physical world. An example of the first might be past-directed time travel, and of the second, the solution, to infinity, of the book-stacking problem.
I’ll be fascinated to see where this thread goes, and hope to chip in again later.
-
How can you relate this to conservation of energy?
How does conservation of energy apply to a BB model where did that energy come from. If the energy is constantly being recycled to a White from a Black hole, the universe makes more sense.
Einstein’s equations establish that white holes are mathematically possible; so this idea is on a better footing than, for example, the magic unicorn poking a hole in spacetime, thus causing a universe to appear. However, let’s not forget that there are many examples of things that “exist” mathematically, but may not, or do not exist in the physical world.
Noted BUT
What causes quantum fluctuations in space to appear out of no where (likely cause of dark energy and the expansion of space) . Zero point energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Could zero point energy be being driven from a white hole expanding via an additional dimension normally existing outside space time ie a wormhole or multiverse concept.
Could wave particle duality and entanglement also not be better explained via an additional dimension operating outside space time, which allows for instantaneous wave function collapse and the appearance of a particle.)
Edit interesting link on white holes
-
What causes quantum fluctuations in space to appear out of no where
Do quantum fluctuations appear from nowhere? Surely they are fluctuations of something that must precede them.
-
Nobody has ever witnessed quantum fluctuations. They are inferred from other phenomena. They can be used to explain why other things might happen. The problem is that you can include them in endless speculation. That isn't scientific.
-
Even inferred fluctuations would have to be inferred fluctuations of something; wouldn't they?
-
What is that something?
-
Nobody has ever witnessed quantum fluctuations. They are inferred from other phenomena. They can be used to explain why other things might happen. The problem is that you can include them in endless speculation. That isn't scientific.
The Casimir effect is proof that quantum fluctuations exist. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
Quantum fluctuations prevent absolute zero being reached.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy. The HUP allows us to calculate the lowest possible energy in a vacuum, the zero point energy is a result of quantum fluctuations.
What I am thinking is that maybe if we do exist inside a white hole event horizon, and it is this that causes the expansion of space/dark energy/cosmological constant. The apparently random quantum fluctuations in space (zero point energy) may be an effect from the expansion of the white hole via a wormhole/other non space time dimension.
If the expansion of space time is being driven by a white hole event initiated at some point in the past, from a Black hole in the future, things get confusing.
-
What is that something?
Space time, zero point energy.
-
What is that something?
Don't know, but I find the idea of fluctuations of nothing difficult to imagine.
On reflection; one has to ask if "nothing" is permitted by QM. There seems to be a distinct certainty about it. On the other hand, if uncertainty simply prevents us from having full knowledge of certain properties of a quon, the problem goes away, because there would be none there!
-
Going back to the questions at the start; and keeping in mind that the responses are just inexpert musings; I’ll have a go.
Could a white hole be the cause of the original big bang?
Yes, if there were something that preceded the BB in which a BH/WH combination existed. However, the possibility of its existence would not establish a causal link with our Universe.
Could white holes, in creating space, account for the apparent, accelerating expanding universe today?
Yes, if our Universe is inside the radius of the WH.
Could the quantum fluctuations existing throughout all of space be a result of a white hole, and explain the HUP?
Don’t know. What mechanism would you suggest?
Could the expansion of space be attributed to a white hole emitting energy in an additional dimension all around us today?
Why would an additional dimension be necessary?
Is the multiverse concept better explained by adding additional dimensions to space time.
String theorists might say yes. Mathematically, extra theoretical dimensions may be useful. Personally, I see no need for extra physical dimensions.
Could Energy escape from a Black Hole and reappear via another dimension as a White hole and drive the expansion of space.?
Not sure what to make of this one. Are you thinking of energy escaping from another universe, via a BH, then entering our Universe, via a WH? If so, presumably, conservation of energy would work only at the level of the multiverse. In that case; would we observe energy conservation in our Universe?
-
Does everyone accept there are additional dimensions? IF NOT WHY NOT?
That must depend a lot on what you mean by "dimensions". I found the following in my notes from a few years age when I was trying to sort out my thoughts on this subject.
"To sum up the situation regarding dimensions, we should be aware that although in common usage the term dimensions refers usually to the three dimensions of space, often referred to as the “x, y and z” dimensions, or to the four dimensions of space time (x, y, z and t), the term does have a wider meaning. Dimensions may best be considered as those quantities, or qualities, that completely define the state of a system. Thus, the dimensions of speed are length (d) and time (t); d/t.
The concept of dimensions is not restricted to physical objects. Higher-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics, and from there may be transferred to theoretical physics. These are often referred to as parameter spaces or configuration spaces. Valuable as these concepts are they are, essentially, abstract concepts, or spaces, and are independent of the physical space in which we live."
-
Quantum fluctuations appearing as if by magic, in accordance with the HUP is not a complete answer. It requires more thought as to where the fluctuations originate.
A clever ant living in flat land may be able to work out the odds of when a distortion in flat land will appear, a higher dimensional creature will be able to observe why a distortion in flat land occurs. Similarly if apparently random fluctuations appear in space time, these fluctuations may be from a higher dimension.
Prior to the BB space time did not exist, could an ER bridge be another dimension which does not require space time.
The ER bridge is not a path in space time, it is a path around space time.
If the BB was a result of a WH/BH combination at different points in time connected by a ER bridge, the expansion of space dark energy may be being driven by a WH. Ourselves only perceiving space time dimensions do not experience higher dimensions, except perhaps distortions in space explainable only by a probability function. The Quantum fluctuations appearing and disappearing in space apparently at random may be from a higher dimension that existed before the BB, or something like a ER Bridge connecting a BH singularity and a WH event horizon.
The WH would exist in the past and the original BH would exist in the future, but be connected via a ER bridge perhaps maybe possibly. If the expansion of space time is being driven by a WH and a BH recycles any information that goes into it, ejecting the information that goes into it via a WH, then it makes the BB a bit more believable, and there is no information loss paradox.
Space time is very grainy at the quantum level, and not quite so smooth as depicted in relativity. Does an ER bridge from a BH need to appear at one point in space time, why would it not pass its information over all points in space at a given instant in time causing a uniform acceleration of the universe.
My editor is playing up tonight.
-
Prior to the BB space time did not exist,
We know that, how?
could an ER bridge be another dimension which does not require space time.
I've not read this yet, but it may contain something of value.
https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html
-
We know that, how?
Big Bang Theory and Einsteins Field Equations.I've not read this yet, but it may contain something of value.
https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html
It is a bit pop science but it does clearly state that "Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes". This is an indication of different dimensions in space, which are not necessarily spacial or dependent on time. A wormhole connecting a region in space could have started at a singularity and then expanded out to be an entire universe and still be expanding in all directions in space time. If I am not mistaken this appears to be happening today. The expansion of space time could be being driven by a white hole.
A White hole is the opposite of a Black hole, a BH contracts space time and WH expands space time. (Matter also contracts space time due to gravity) Nothing leaves a BH except perhaps Hawking radiation. Nothing can enter a WH, except perhaps the reverse of Hawking radiation, could something like this account for the huge discrepancy between the amount of calculated zero point energy and the dark energy driving the expansion of the universe.
I have a crap internet connection at the moment, apologies for my slow reply.
-
Big Bang Theory and Einsteins Field Equations.
All that can tell us is how things were after the BB.
The expansion of space time could be being driven by a white hole.
It could equally well be caused by the “gravastar” model of Mazur and Chapline.
-
All that can tell us is how things were after the BB.
In order to get to what was before the big bang, some speculation is required as to what space is, I tried opening a discussion on this, but got boxed in, so gave up the will to pursue the thread. The concepts of zero energy universe, or white holes and black holes evolving from each other. Are intriguing to play with but pure speculation. Space is not just nothingness, it has properties and dimensions.
It could equally well be caused by the “gravastar” model of Mazur and Chapline.
Is this what you are talking about https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03208.pdf
-
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that. It's a few years since I looked at the "spinning universe" idea, but I'll see if I can find the original material.
-
As long as you think you can exchange space with time
Which I doubt
Also
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
-
And also please
Define the way you think of 'dimensions' so I can understand the way you think
-
As long as you think you can exchange space with time
And also please
Define the way you think of 'dimensions' so I can understand the way you think
Yor_on, are these directed towards Disinterested, or me?
I think it must be the former, but, just in case.........
-
Disinterested, Bill.
-
As long as you think you can exchange space with time
Which I doubt
Also
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
The White Hole and black holes are from from Einsteins Field Equations.
And also please
Define the way you think of 'dimensions' so I can understand the way you think
Space Time are dimensions from EFE also the Einstein Rosen Bridge is theoretical wormhole connecting a WH to a or multiple BH's. The wormhole only allows energy(???) to pass through, and it is a one way bridge between BH singularities to a WH represented by Space Time which we exist in.
The White hole concept explains the expansion of space and the source of dark energy mentioned in your link above. It is a serious concept and removes the lunacy of the Big Bang being the origin of all energy in the universe, it also allows for the continued expansion of space. The Wormhole connects all points in a expanding space, instantaneously.
A Dimension such as a wormhole does not have to occupy space it steps around it, ie all points in a universe are connected to all singularities in BH's via a one way ER Bridge. This is possibly the source of dark energy, an extension to this idea based on the strong force is that an additional gravitational force not affected by distance transmitted by this dimension may also explain dark matter.
At least that is what I reckon anyways, unless anyone can argue otherwise using common sense.
PS like the link. But consider this gravity could be considered as negative energy whereas the expansion of space time and matter could be considered as positive energy. We may live in a zero energy universe which evolved from a singularity.
-
The HUP borrows energy from somewhere, could it not be another dimension which is not space time or perhaps only influenced by time and not by space.
That's a common misconception. The HUP never borrows energy.
-
Yes, I know that Black holes came about that way with white holes as a later adaption. But a white hole is also a place not unlike a unicorn. I really would like to see one, it would definitely instill a feeling of magic in me, much needed in a way :)
https://www.universetoday.com/122715/what-are-white-holes/
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/what-white-hole/
When it comes to the BB as a white hole?
Well, in a presumably isotropic and homogeneous universe, in where everyone's 'lightsphere' end at 13.7~ billion years, no matter from 'where' in the universe you look out, you will need a awful lot of white holes. Actually close to the whole volume of our universe, to cover all those possible observers at different positions. And if the universe then is 'infinite'?
=
Actually, I find this a intriguing argument, nonwithstanding 'white holes' or not creating a BB, for considering 'holographic solutions' to how this universe can be.
-
When it comes to dimensions you have several possibilities semantically, but using it astronomically I think there are physical restrictions. Bill summed it up pretty nicely I think ""To sum up the situation regarding dimensions, we should be aware that although in common usage the term dimensions refers usually to the three dimensions of space, often referred to as the “x, y and z” dimensions, or to the four dimensions of space time (x, y, z and t), the term does have a wider meaning. Dimensions may best be considered as those quantities, or qualities, that completely define the state of a system. Thus, the dimensions of speed are length (d) and time (t); d/t."
We have four that we can measure. Abstractly only your ideas, as well as mathematics, may restrict you though. Dimensions is overall a very tricky subject.
-
That's a common misconception. The HUP never borrows energy.
The HUP is a mathematical function that predicts the appearance of quantum fluctuations and causes space time to be grainy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
A White hole is the opposite of a Black hole, Hawking Radiation due to a BH may have an equivalent in a White Hole, and appear as Quantum Foam, maybe (???)
-
Yes, I know that Black holes came about that way with white holes as a later adaption. But a white hole is also a place not unlike a unicorn. I really would like to see one, it would definitely instill a feeling of magic in me, much needed in a way :)
the thread is about the possibility white holes not unicorns :)
We may be living in a White hole which is still driving the expansion of space, and shows up as dark energy, or quantum fluctuations, as predicted by HUP, and proven to exist by the Casimir experiment.
-
We have four that we can measure. Abstractly only your ideas, as well as mathematics, may restrict you though. Dimensions is overall a very tricky subject.
A ER bridge or wormhole is not affected by space dimensions, would distance or time even apply in such a dimension. If space time inside a BH ceases to exist, while matter is compressed heated and converted into radiation etc, this energy may escape via a wormhole to all points in space, causing the expansion of space Maybe
-
A ER bridge or wormhole is not affected by space dimensions, would distance or time even apply in such a dimension. If space time inside a BH ceases to exist, while matter is compressed heated and converted into radiation etc, this energy may escape via a wormhole to all points in space, causing the expansion of space Maybe
I would say that all these things are possible, and are interesting to speculate about. The maths may already have been done, so the next thing must be finding physical evidence.
-
I would say that all these things are possible, and are interesting to speculate about. The maths may already have been done, so the next thing must be finding physical evidence.
Would the expansion of space count as evidence. If a White hole is the opposite of a black hole then there may be an equivalent of Hawking radiation which may be manifesting itself as quantum foam in space perhaps. Dark Matter may be explained away via an additional force being transmitted via an additional dimension. Would the existence of an additional none spacial dimension be demonstrated by wave particle duality whereby the wave manifests itself at all points in space before appearing as a packet of energy at a specific location.
-
Would the expansion of space count as evidence.
Assuming that space is expanding, which is not universally accepted; it is evidence that something is causing space to expand. Beyond that is theory and speculation. Some theory is supported by maths, which gives it an advantage over speculation, which lacks that support.
Count the number of times you used “may” in your last post and ask yourself if a Court would accept that as evidence.
-
Count the number of times you used “may” in your last post and ask yourself if a Court would accept that as evidence.
I was asking leading questions, seeking clarification one way or the other that the ideas being put forward were not barking mad, My Lord.
In order to put together a coherent model, a clear picture of what one suspects is going on is required. It helps to know an idea is plausible before one gets bogged down in the detail. Alarmingly it seems I MIGHT not be a million miles from the truth, even if some of the ideas are a bit speculative. (???)
-
Assuming that space is expanding, which is not universally accepted;
I thought all sentient people accepted the universe is expanding, the static universe model I thought was dead. Have I missed something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
The outer edges of the solar system are moving away from us at approx 3c. This is not possible unless space is expanding. The red shift ??? Black holes cause the contraction of space time. A White hole expands space time
-
Assuming that space is expanding, which is not universally accepted;
I thought all sentient people accepted the universe is expanding, the static universe model I thought was dead. Have I missed something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe)
The outer edges of the solar system are moving away from us at approx 3c. This is not possible unless space is expanding. The red shift ??? Black holes cause the contraction of space time. A White hole expands space time
There are quite a few science professionals who do not reject the steady state universe based on the consensus view that the observable universe is expanding. I would agree if you were to say that most knowledgeable science enthusiasts agree that the observable universe is expanding. There is pretty clear evidence for expansion of the portion of the universe that we can observe.
But given the apparent observed expansion of our local portion of the universe, for which a big bang seems an appropriate premise, the whole scenario of Big Bang Theory has its detractors in the scientific community. BBT raises the question first cause. Though BBT doesn’t address the beginning, it is implied that there was a big bang, and that implication begs the question of what caused the big bang.
Do you want to go there in this thread? I’ll check back :)
-
Do you want to go there in this thread? I’ll check back
Why not, all sentient ideas welcomed, if a White hole was not the cause of the Big Bang what was, where did that energy come from to allow a BB. The zero energy universe? BH + WH = 0 perhaps.
-
Do you want to go there in this thread? I’ll check back
Why not, all sentient ideas welcomed, if a White hole was not the cause of the Big Bang what was, where did that energy come from to allow a BB. The zero energy universe? BH + WH = 0 perhaps.
The whole white hole topic goes beyond any hint of evidence, but is, as you point out, an interesting idea put forth by a few mathematicians and physicists who wonder if a white hole might explain the Big Bang, since this is another situation where a tremendous amount of matter and energy spontaneously appeared. There are several avenues where a white hole can be theorized, but the drawback is “spontaneously appeared” presumably out of nothingness, which is a violation of known physics, or at least a violation of the scientific method, where “fanciful” and or “supernatural” are not considered scientific.
Here is a link on white holes and black holes by Fraser Cain,
https://www.universetoday.com/122715/what-are-white-holes/ (https://www.universetoday.com/122715/what-are-white-holes/)
Fraser Cain used to host a show and a science forum call Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today where I got my feet wet in the speculating pool, lol. He says, “White holes are created when astrophysicists mathematically explore the environment around black holes, but pretend there’s no mass within the event horizon.”
A speculation might be, maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?
However, if you allow my suggestion about a first cause, then whether it was a black hole, a white hole, or a spontaneous event out of nothingness that preceded the apparent big bang, you are faced with a choice of possibilities:
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
Do you have a preference among the three choices?
If so, I'm glad to speculate with you about if a White hole was not the cause of the Big Bang what was.
-
A speculation might be, maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?
However, if you allow my suggestion about a first cause, then whether it was a black hole, a white hole, or a spontaneous event out of nothingness that preceded the apparent big bang, you are faced with a choice of possibilities:
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
Do you have a preference among the three choices?
"maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?" Maybe -ve energy(gravity) + +ve energy(dark energy) = zero energy universe
Option 1 and 3 are cop outs. Option 2 may be like knowing the mind of god. So Option 2 would be the one to speculate about.
I still have an interest in WH and BH's big and small with or without matter. IF a WH can exist in an eternal BH. One could go insane.
-
"maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?" Maybe -ve energy(gravity) + +ve energy(dark energy) = zero energy universe
Option 1 and 3 are cop outs. Option 2 may be like knowing the mind of god. So Option 2 would be the one to speculate about.
… One could go insane.
Insanity is certainly an option, lol.
Thinking about the possibilities, like which explanation for the existence of the universe do we choose, is my logical first step in building a case that I personally find logical about the nature of the universe. Given the circumstance that we each make a different selection from the three choices means that we will have different starting points in building our logical case, and so individually we will derive scenarios about cosmology that the other would not invoke, and therefore we probably won’t agree on our views of what reality is likely to be.
Case in point, my selection is #3, “Always existed” because the “something from nothing” option, which they call the ultimate free lunch, violates my born-in and/or situationally developed grasp of logic. Somewhere along the line, you and I have taken up some views that make us diverge in our appreciation of logic. That presents an opportunity for me, and maybe for you, to consider views developed from a different logical base, which is a healthy exercise.
I still have an interest in WH and BH's big and small with or without matter. IF a WH can exist in an eternal BH.
My logic, and the generally accepted consensus, tells me that matter does exist, though it seems that only a small portion (maybe 4%) of the energy of observable universe is contained in matter, and much larger portions are contained in dark matter and dark energy (21% and 75% respectively, for talking purposes). Your argument might be that there is obviously matter in our observable universe, but in the larger universe there are places where there is anti-matter to offset it, and the net is zero; hmm, possible.
That drives me to the next step in my path of logic, and our views diverge. A white hole cannot exist mathematically, at least according to the explanations suggested by the Fraser Cain article, if even a single atom enters the scene. Given that matter exists, my next step is to go with the existence of black holes and the non-existence of white holes.
If so, you can guess that I would consider, as a precondition to our big bang, a big crunch, which I would describe as a very massive black hole. Further, I would be looking at what steps of logic would be necessary for such a super massive black hole to collapse/bang into an expanding arena in space that we might actually call our observable universe.
This collapse/bang is the event that either had preconditions (in my view it logically could have been a collapse/bang of a big crunch in a pre-existing and eternal landscape of the greater universe), or was spontaneously generated out of nothingness (the logical option if it was caused by a white hole).
What do you think?
-
The outer edges of the solar system are moving away from us at approx 3c.
As far as we know, that is the case, but although it is by far the accepted view in the halls of academia, there are those who look for other explanations for the observed red shift on which this belief is based.
Possibly these people are cranks; but who am I to judge?
-
BBT raises the question first cause. Though BBT doesn’t address the beginning, it is implied that there was a big bang, and that implication begs the question of what caused the big bang.
Over the couple of decades, or so, that I have been reading about this sort of thing, the answer to the question "what came before the BB?" seems to have shifted from an emphatic "nothing" to "we don't really know".
Is that just an impression I have, or do others share it?
-
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
This might seem like semantics, but I would like to add another option that is really a modification of 3). Following John Gribbin’s terminology (which I have explained elsewhere), my choice would be for:
4) The cosmos is infinite/eternal and, as far as we can tell, our Universe “emerged” from that via the BB.
-
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
This might seem like semantics, but I would like to add another option that is really a modification of 3). Following John Gribbin’s terminology (which I have explained elsewhere), my choice would be for:
4) The cosmos is infinite/eternal and, as far as we can tell, our Universe “emerged” from that via the BB.
My response refers to the definition of “universe”; something like “all there is”. If “our Universe ‘emerged’ from that, via the BB” doesn’t that mean your #4 explanation for the existence of the universe is inconsistent with the definition of the word universe, i.e., requiring more that one of something for which the definition says there is only one?
If I rephrase the wording of your choice to be: The cosmos is infinite/eternal, and as far as we can tell, our observable universe emerged from within that via the BB, then I’m on board.
-
If I rephrase the wording of your choice to be: The cosmos is infinite/eternal, and as far as we can tell, our observable universe emerged from within that via the BB, then I’m on board.
That's fine with me, but I raise an eyebrow at "from within". On reflection, I would go for "emerged within".
I think Gribbin was trying to find a way round the sometimes confusing shades of meaning attached to the term "universe", so he clarified his position.
Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.
I tend to follow that, while accepting that does not do justice to the etymology of "universe".
It's probably no worse than the "abuses" visited upon "infinite" or "nothing" :)
-
If I rephrase the wording of your choice to be: The cosmos is infinite/eternal, and as far as we can tell, our observable universe emerged from within that via the BB, then I’m on board.
That's fine with me, but I raise an eyebrow at "from within". On reflection, I would go for "emerged within".
I think Gribbin was trying to find a way round the sometimes confusing shades of meaning attached to the term "universe", so he clarified his position.
Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.
I tend to follow that, while accepting that does not do justice to the etymology of "universe".
It's probably no worse than the "abuses" visited upon "infinite" or "nothing" :)
I guess I might understand Gribbin’s issue. Spacetime doesn’t accommodate multiple big bangs or multiple universes; each one would require its own spacetime sphere, using the term “sphere” broadly as a way to distinguish one spacetime from another. However, if Gribbin believes he must invoke spacetime/GR in order to talk within the mainstream peer group, perhaps that is what motivated him to use those specifying definitions.
He might be striking a distinction between cosmos and universe, and further distinguishing between one universe (the Universe), and the many worlds version of a potentially infinite number of universes (a multi-verse) in order to permit a discussion that incorporates a variety of cosmologies; a way to circumvent the confusion that the lexicons associated with individual cosmological models don’t seem to adequately handle.
-
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same, the universe exists because it can. 2 differs in that it looks for a reason it can exist unlike options 1 and 3, that just accept the existence as fact without asking why.
You suggest insanity is OK(???) and like speculation. I prefer to ask what could happen have happened before a Big Bang, but since no one knows what came before a BB, then it is wide open to speculation.
A zero energy universe does not result from taking antimatter and crashing it into matter the matter is simply converted into gamma rays, with equal energy to the matter that was destroyed. A zero energy universe requires that the sum total of energy is zero.
The concept of dark energy and gravity being opposites is interesting. Matter can not pass through a worm hole or so theory says, a black hole would destroy matter that enters it, most likely reducing it down due to temperatures induced from high pressures into fundamental particles and then into radiation inside the BH. What happens to photons at the singularity inside a BH, they can not travel at c, they can not escape the singularity. Wave particle duality allows the waves to pass through all points in space before manifesting at particular point, could those waves occupy another dimension not affected by space time and be the cause of the Quantum Fluctuations filling all of space that are possibly the cause of dark energy, ie the wave function CAN escape the BH via another dimension that occupies all of space, the wave function exists in reality in a 5th dimension (not the rock band). This dimension allows all things to be connected without being affected by distance. It also allows wormholes, entanglement (instantaneous wave function collapse ftl) etc.
If energy exists in a none space time dimension, then that could be dark matter, or more probably there is an additional gravitational force like the strong force not affected by distance which is transmitted through this dimension in addition to the gravitational forces in space time suggested by Einstein. The cosmological constant and dark energy are most likely the cause of quantum fluctuations possibly caused by a BH and are the output of a White hole.
I think space is not just space time occupying an infinite space and time, there is also a zero space connecting all points in space time which allows ftl info transfer in entangled photons and particles, it allows wave functions to occupy all points in space, it allows energy to escape a BH and appear as Quantum fluctuations in all of space etc etc
Clearly I need some help refuting these irrational thoughts :) ........ Things exist because space exists, and space is not just space time dimensions when you zoom in. BB's appeared out of space, BH's absorb space, these are extreme opposites one causes the accelerating expansion and the other the contraction of space and matter. Hawking radiation allows energy to escape a BH's event horizon in space time. A wormhole or non spacial dimension allows energy to get out of its backside, but not as we know it :) and be regenerated as space time and quantum fluctuations.
-
Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same, the universe exists because it can.
I have to disagree, strongly, with this.
2 says the Universe arose from an impossible situation - something from nothing - therefore, the Universe cannot exist. Manifestly, the Universe does exist, within our definition of the term, so 2 is not a realistic option.
-
1) God did it as the first cause …
2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …
3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same, the universe exists because it can. 2 differs in that it looks for a reason it can exist unlike options 1 and 3, that just accept the existence as fact without asking why.
Bill S addressed why #2 & #3 are not the same, and I wonder if you have misread them?
You suggest insanity is OK(???) and like speculation. I prefer to ask what could happen have happened before a Big Bang, but since no one knows what came before a BB, then it is wide open to speculation.
Jokingly, insanity is OK, lol. And I do speculate about the “as yet” unknowns in science. However, speculating starts with the “knowns” in science, and is used to fill the gaps where there is not yet a consensus.
Speculation comes into play about some of the things you mention: matter and antimatter, a zero energy universe, dark energy, gravity, worm holes, what happens inside a black holes, white holes, etc., etc.
I think that known science, and speculations that fill the gaps in known science, are both part of the path that a layman science enthusiast takes as they build their personal views on the nature of the universe. That is why I like to participate in discussions about the various topics, and your question about white holes is a good case for discussion.
I do think that if a person is going to build a view of cosmology, that it helps to establish a starting point, and that was what I was saying by suggesting the three main possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Once a starting point is stated, then all of the following points can be added from known science or from contemplation and speculations. The key is that everything that one includes in a personal view or model must be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.
The best way to test for consistency and appropriateness is to discuss views on open forums and hope for constructive, educational feed back like we get here.
-
I have to disagree, strongly, with this.
2 says the Universe arose from an impossible situation - something from nothing - therefore, the Universe cannot exist. Manifestly, the Universe does exist, within our definition of the term, so 2 is not a realistic option.
I think you are wrong
Space time is something which is expanding, it is not nothing. It is expanding due to dark energy or the cosmological constant. This appears to show that something can come from nothing. The energy in the universe does appear to be increasing due to this expansion. Either this energy is being fed by something like a BH singularity and another dimension ie it is coming from somewhere. OR it is a spontaneous increase in energy which violates thermodynamics.
There are various statements in physics such as instantaneous wave function collapse (entanglement faster than light information transfer) wave particle duality (the wave exists at all points in space) predicted ER bridges, all of which suggest there is another dimension, perhaps none spacial connecting all points in space which allows information transfer.
An eternal BH + other more recent BH's connected via a ER bridge(none spacial dimension) to a White hole may be the source of dark energy, this allows the laws of thermodynamics to remain intact. Poplawski has written about this http://www.thespaceacademy.org/2017/11/every-black-hole-contains-another.html
Bill S addressed why #2 & #3 are not the same, and I wonder if you have misread them?
I dont think I misread his statement I may be wrong but I think option 3 is not looking deep enough.
Jokingly, insanity is OK, lol. And I do speculate about the “as yet” unknowns in science. However, speculating starts with the “knowns” in science, and is used to fill the gaps where there is not yet a consensus.
I hope to avoid the insanity, but as you have pointed out on another thread therre are many options in cosmology and not always consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
The best way to test for consistency and appropriateness is to discuss views on open forums and hope for constructive, educational feed back like we get here.
That is what I am hoping for.
-
Space time is something which is expanding,
Is it spacetime or just space?
-
Bill S addressed why #2 & #3 are not the same, and I wonder if you have misread them?
I don't think I misread his statement I may be wrong but I think option 3 is not looking deep enough.
Jokingly, insanity is OK, lol. And I do speculate about the “as yet” unknowns in science. However, speculating starts with the “knowns” in science, and is used to fill the gaps where there is not yet a consensus.
I hope to avoid the insanity, but as you have pointed out on another thread there are many options in cosmology and not always consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)
The best way to test for consistency and appropriateness is to discuss views on open forums and hope for constructive, educational feed back like we get here.
That is what I am hoping for.
You are touching on some good ideas, and I will give you what I have picked up from around here in that regard.
Spacetime is a mathematical description of how objects move through space in regard to a set of equations that take into account all of the things in space that influence the motion of objects, like planets and galaxies, etc.
The things in space that influence that motion are matter, as in the planets, and stars and galaxies, etc., as well as particles, gases, and a couple of other “as yet” unexplained sources of energy. Those other sources are referred to as dark matter and dark energy.
If you are open for some speculation, dark matter might include gravitational wave energy, and wave energy convergences like virtual particles. Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein and recently have been detected by interferometers from the US (LIGO), and from the European Space Agency (ESA).
The effect called virtual particles might have a “hint” of mass, that pops into and out of existence in space, which could speculatively be the result of random convergences of gravitational wave energy.
The gravitational waves that we have detected are produced by massive cosmic events at the highest energy levels, like in-swirling black holes that are about to collide. The key to the emanation of gravitational waves is relative acceleration, and when you think about it, even the smallest objects and particles are accelerating relative to all other particles and objects, and so might loosely be considered sources of very low gravitational wave energy; speculation to be sure, but there is supposed to be about 21% of the energy in space attributed to this as yet unexplained dark matter, and it could be the energy contained in the gravitational waves that are traversing space to and from all directions. Certainly if there is such a component of energy in space, it would manifest itself in the hints of mass at the convergences of those waves. Still just speculation on my part.
The other “as yet” unknown source of energy in space is called dark energy. There is a general consensus that it is somehow related to the energy emitted by the Big Bang, but there is no consensus explanation.
If you are still open to speculation, you have to figure that the particles that make up the matter in space, which account for only about 4% of the predicted energy in space, all have momentum, relative to the initial big bang event. Since particles formed early in the expansion of the observable universe, it would seem that they would have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. If momentum is conserved as the particles clump into atoms, and molecules, and gases, and stars and galaxies, that could account for the as yet unexplained 75% of the energy in space. If the idea of separation momentum being imparted to particles is reasonable, then the observed separation of galaxies might be the result, and that would explain the source of dark energy. Speculation, to be sure, but since there is no consensus on what causes dark energy, I submit that idea as food for thought.
Space time is something which is expanding,
Is it spacetime or just space?
Colin2B makes a very good point. Expansion of the universe is a consensus view, and the evidence is that the galaxies, on a grand scale, are all moving away from each other; the expansion is accelerating according to certain "standard candles" but I'm far from an expert.
-
The point I was making is that while we can see that galaxies are moving away from us, and we can conjecture that space is expanding, can we also assume time is also expanding ie spacetime is expanding.
We know that the presence of energy, particularly in the form of mass, causes variations in the rate of time; but does it automatically expand with space?
-
The point I was making is that while we can see that galaxies are moving away from us, and we can conjecture that space is expanding, can we also assume time is also expanding ie spacetime is expanding.
We know that the presence of energy, particularly in the form of mass, causes variations in the rate of time; but does it automatically expand with space?
I would say that the rate that time passes in any location of space is governed by the relative energy density of that space. If so, on that basis, time is simply passing everywhere at different relative rates, but the rate that we observe its passing is measured by a clock. The rate that a clock measures the passing of time would then be variable, depending on the energy density at the location of the observation of the clock. Two clocks in relative motion would measure a different rate of time passing in the same general location.
Therefore, I wouldn't say that time expands with space. I would say that objects move through space, and spacetime is the mathematical expression of the relative motion of objects, calculated by Einstein's field equations, that take into consideration the energy density of the space in all directions surrounding the moving objects.
-
I think you are wrong
Space time is something which is expanding, it is not nothing.
I've not had time to read the last few posts yet, so this might have been addressed.
I didn's say space was nothing, I said it couldn't emerge from nothing.
-
A zero energy universe requires that the sum total of energy is zero.
That’s an interesting concept. Surely there are two interpretations of a zero energy universe.
1. A universe that contains no energy.
2. A universe which contains equal quantities of -ve and +ve energy, so the net is zero.
There must be a distinction (?)
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
yoron • 5 years ago
Mayb e you could assign entropy a ratio too then, stating that it is a direction relative a volume, so as the 'universe' grows the entropy stays the same, relative any chosen patch of measurement, not that we can measure vacuum energies as far as i know. but it still doesn't feel good enough to me. This is per definition 'new energy' if I read you correctly, from where? And do entropy allow new energies? Not in a closed system, but if the universe is open, unbounded, it just might?
the key point should be to define from where we gain it I suspect, if a expansion is correct
Yor_on, this has to be you.
Did you get an answer to: “ This is per definition 'new energy' if I read you correctly, from where?” ?
-
Is it spacetime or just space?
That’s an interesting concept. Surely there are two interpretations of a zero energy universe.
1. A universe that contains no energy.
2. A universe which contains equal quantities of -ve and +ve energy, so the net is zero.
There must be a distinction (?)
Speculating what came before the BB, Space time did not exist as it is today. What existed before the BB most likely still exists today.
If we assume that the BB was the source of all matter and energy in the universe, and represents a WH, the BH it originated from had no mass and filled all of space existing prior to the BB. If this space as I suggested on my previous post was not space time dimensions, but something like a dimension that allows instantaneous information transfer to all points in space time, without passing through space time, it could explain to the laymen like me wave particle duality, entanglement, and some other weird stuff in quantum mechanics.
Further Conjecture, If gravity and dark energy are the result of the absorption and emission of quantum fluctuations in space. At the centre of a massive BH all Quantum fluctuations are absorbed ie do not exist, and space time ceases to exist. At a time before the BB expansion of space there were no quantum fluctuations, this would be the equivalent of a BH, that would induce a WH and space time to come into existence.
If dark energy from a White hole is represented as +ve energy and gravity is represented as -ve energy, then maybe the laws of thermodynamics remain in tact.
The other “as yet” unknown source of energy in space is called dark energy. There is a general consensus that it is somehow related to the energy emitted by the Big Bang, but there is no consensus explanation.
And if this energy is from a white hole still expanding in space time still connected to a BH then a WH could be the sourse of the BB.If you are open for some speculation, dark matter might include gravitational wave energy, and wave energy convergences like virtual particles. Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein and recently have been detected by interferometers from the US (LIGO), and from the European Space Agency (ESA).
The effect called virtual particles might have a “hint” of mass, that pops into and out of existence in space, which could speculatively be the result of random convergences of gravitational wave energy.
I think there is some mileage in this argument, virtual particle or not it still has energy and momentum and it is there on average all the time and must therefore have an effect on average on gravity. Dark matter could of course be easier explained by an additional long range force not affected by distance like the strong force. The HUP indicates quantum fluctuations exist on average. The Casimir effect proves they exist.If you are still open to speculation, you have to figure that the particles that make up the matter in space, which account for only about 4% of the predicted energy in space, all have momentum, relative to the initial big bang event. Since particles formed early in the expansion of the observable universe, it would seem that they would have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. If momentum is conserved as the particles clump into atoms, and molecules, and gases, and stars and galaxies, that could account for the as yet unexplained 75% of the energy in space. If the idea of separation momentum being imparted to particles is reasonable, then the observed separation of galaxies might be the result, and that would explain the source of dark energy. Speculation, to be sure, but since there is no consensus on what causes dark energy, I submit that idea as food for thought.
Mass and energy causes attraction that would result in a big crunch.
The energy of the BB is still appearing as Dark energy, it has not stopped yet and the expansion of space time is still expanding and is full of new virtual particles.
-
Some one is going to have to speculate on the form of extra dimensions, unless you all wish to live in flat land forever. Brains or membranes in string theory, indicate they exist, ER bridges indicate they exist, Wave particle duality indicate they exist, entanglement indicates they exist. So why dont we all come clean and state the frickin obvious extra dimensions exist, and discuss what forms they take, spacial or otherwise.
Here is a little pop science on the membranes http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole. It gives some pictures of how extra dimensions would appear, I dont agree with the artists impressions. Does anyone else have an opinion. My views (all points can MAY be connected via at least one extra dimension) are aired and ignored earlier in the thread. Does anyone else have a sentient coherent opinion.
-
Some one is going to have to speculate on the form of extra dimensions, unless you all wish to live in flat land forever. Brains or membranes in string theory, indicate they exist, ER bridges indicate they exist, Wave particle duality indicate they exist, entanglement indicates they exist. So why dont we all come clean and state the frickin obvious extra dimensions exist, and discuss what forms they take, spacial or otherwise.
Here is a little pop science on the membranes http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole (http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole). It gives some pictures of how extra dimensions would appear, I dont agree with the artists impressions. Does anyone else have an opinion. My views (all points can MAY be connected via at least one extra dimension) are aired and ignored earlier in the thread. Does anyone else have a sentient coherent opinion.
Well, I might be willing to continue with speculations about extra dimensions, but I don't consider the lack of extra dimensions to be "flat land", though your point is not lost on me. Let's work on a definition of "flat land". Would I be close to say that it would include those a few non-science professionals who insist that the current consensus cosmology, which I think can be called Big Bang Theory, i.e., General Relativity with Guth's Inflation theory, is the Reality? There are some that may think that, if you go by the comments on science forums.
I say non-professionals, because my view is that the professionals in the scientific community are advocates of the Scientific Method, which includes one pillar called the Tentativeness of science. Tentativeness of science, taken as part of the guidance that I think professionals follow, means that any current theory, consensus or otherwise, is subject to new findings. Many theories, over time, have been superseded by newer theories, newer or better evidence, better math, etc.
I will say that the speculation that our big bang really happened 13.7 billion years ago seems reasonable. The particulars of that event might be the result of a white hole somewhere on a multiple dimensional membrane or Brane, as discussed in your link, but like you, the graphic seems lacking (however portraying multiple dimensional space is no easy task).
But the big event might also be referred to as the collapse/“bang” of the presence of a preceding super-massive object, a big crunch in the form of a blackhole which contained the equivalent of the matter and energy of our entire expanding big bang arena. The resulting "bang" would produce the entire observable expanding universe, as well as the unseen and unobservable portions of our big bang arena. Both scenarios, the branes, and the big crunch/bang would both include their particular set of preconditions, and there would be some significant differences in the pre-requisites of each event.
My inclination is consider the preconditions of the super massive blackhole scenario that I am referencing, to be much simpler than the brane theory, for various reasons. I am open to discussing the comparison between Brane theory and the multiple big bang landscape preconditions, if you have any interest.
-
My inclination is consider the preconditions of the super massive blackhole scenario that I am referencing, to be much simpler than the brane theory, for various reasons. I am open to discussing the comparison between Brane theory and the multiple big bang landscape preconditions, if you have any interest.
Yes I would like to discuss all options.
I assume you are referencing the possibility of supermassive BH's losing energy out of their event horizons by a mechanism different to hawking radiation, rather than losing wave energy through an ER bridge into a WH and additional dimensions, which then manifest as virtual particles and the HUP.
The idea of a black hole exploding into space time, assumes that the energy/matter forming the BH existed and was compressed down in a big crunch before exploding as a BB. This does not get around the idea of where all energy/matter comes from in the BB. Your options one and three above matter/energy has always existed or god did it does not seem as simple as a zero energy universe, whereby matter and energy comes into existence because it can. The concepts of additional dimensions, brane theories, membranes, wormholes, etc exist in many theories, all indicate extra spacial dimensions exist. It is very simple for me to accept they exist, to accept that BH's can explode is against EFE. Einsteins field equations predicted BH's long before people believed they existed, white holes are a feature of the same equations.
Speculating again White holes may explain dark energy, an additional dimension may explain dark matter via the addition of an additional long range force.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on the BB from a or multiple BH's.
Would I be close to say that it would include those a few non-science professionals who insist that the current consensus cosmology, which I think can be called Big Bang Theory, i.e., General Relativity with Guth's Inflation theory, is the Reality?
I am not familiar with Guths inflation theory, but you would be closer to the truth if you stated some people believe that a mathematical model is reality, when in actual fact it only represents a approximation of reality, like bad grammar only paints part of the picture :) . To take relativity and to state dark matter which has never been detected must exist, is not 100% believable. A more believable explanation might be to predict a new type of long range force. The few optical effects attributed to dark matter could be explained away via space dust.
Many theories, over time, have been superseded by newer theories, newer or better evidence, better math, etc.
Perhaps MOND, or QLG or one of the many other theories around will be able to explain away dark matter. There was an attempt a lot of years ago adding an extra dimension to relativity to incorporate electromagnetism. All these theories are all trying to explain the world using different techniques etc. Zelots supporting one theory above another often try to prevent discussion of anything other than space time, which is boring. I think as long as people stay reasonably close to standard models and actual observations in any discussion people learn something at each pass. White holes and extra dimensions sound believable to me, and help explain the few things I mentioned on previous posts on this thread. Visualizing how those dimensions might appear in our space time "flatland" is intriguing.
(however portraying multiple dimensional space is no easy task).
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy, and the BB which originated from a Mass less BH ER bridge is still happening, and expanding space time all around you via this extra dimension. The artists impressions on the link show things separated they are not they should be overlayed and interlinked. Bla Bla etc.
-
Yes I would like to discuss all options.
I assume you are referencing the possibility of supermassive BH's losing energy out of their event horizons by a mechanism different [from] hawking radiation, rather than losing wave energy through an ER bridge into a WH and additional dimensions, which then manifest as virtual particles and the HUP.
Yes, your assumption is correct.
The idea of a black hole exploding into space time, assumes that the energy/matter forming the BH existed and was compressed down in a big crunch before exploding as a BB.
Terminology in that statement differs from how I would phrase it. My phrasing would be:
“The idea of a black hole collapsing inward to nature’s maximum energy density, and then bouncing off of that maximum limit, and expanding due to energy density equalization, into the space surrounding it, assumes that the energy/matter forming the BH existed in other adjacent expanding big bang arenas. Those "parent" arenas expanded into each other’s occupied space, where their galactic matter and energy was gravitationally accumulated into a big crunch, before collapsing and bouncing into expansion as a new BB arena, expanding into the same space that was previously occupied by the ‘parent’ arenas”?
Forgive me for making that a cumbersome response, … but I wanted to keep your context and reword it as I would have said it.
This does not get around the idea of where all energy/matter comes from in the BB. Your options one and three above matter/energy has always existed or god did it does not seem as simple as a zero energy universe, whereby matter and energy comes into existence because it can.
I guess, when you put it that way, you have a point. However, when I referenced simplicity, I was comparing the details of Brane theory to the details of the multiple big bang landscape that I speculate has always existed, not the issue of choosing your preference for one of the three main explanations for the existence of the universe. Still, no theory of everything is going to be simple, lol.
The concepts of additional dimensions, brane theories, membranes, wormholes, etc exist in many theories, all indicate extra spacial dimensions exist. It is very simple for me to accept they exist, to accept that BH's can explode is against EFE. Einsteins field equations predicted BH's long before people believed they existed, white holes are a feature of the same equations.
Speculating again White holes may explain dark energy, an additional dimension may explain dark matter via the addition of an additional long range force.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on the BB from a or multiple BH's.
Here’s a Wiki on Alan Guth. My point was that his Inflationary Theory and Einstein’s General Relativity make up the generally accepted consensus Big Bang Theory:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_guth.html
… but you would be closer to the truth if you stated some people believe that a mathematical model is reality, when in actual fact it only represents a approximation of reality, like bad grammar only paints part of the picture :) .
Lol, yes, agreed. And no matter how good the math is, and the EFEs are great, the complexity of the body of math that would be required to precisely represent reality is not yet with us, especially since BBT pretty good in respect to what is does right, but there is a lot of cosmological territory that it doesn’t satisfy. And it is that territory that you and I both are contemplating.
To take relativity and to state dark matter which has never been detected must exist, is not 100% believable. A more believable explanation might be to predict a new type of long range force. The few optical effects attributed to dark matter could be explained away via space dust.
Maybe, but I would like to hear about them. The space dust doesn’t do a very good job of explaining it, according to what I have read.
Here is my pitch on dark matter:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537864#msg537864 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537864#msg537864)
And
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143)
Perhaps MOND, or QLG or one of the many other theories around will be able to explain away dark matter.
There was an attempt a lot of years ago adding an extra dimension to relativity to incorporate electromagnetism. All these theories are all trying to explain the world using different techniques etc. Zelots supporting one theory above another often try to prevent discussion of anything other than space time, which is boring. I think as long as people stay reasonably close to standard models and actual observations in any discussion people learn something at each pass. White holes and extra dimensions sound believable to me, and help explain the few things I mentioned on previous posts on this thread. Visualizing how those dimensions might appear in our space time "flatland" is intriguing.
Talking through alternative views helps me, and us, gain a broader perspective, and to adjust my/our thinking when new ideas fit, or supersede previous ideas. When some one starts by choosing a different explanation for the existence of the universe than I do, I look upon it as a good chance to learn about ideas that others find noteworthy.
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy, and the BB which originated from a Mass less BH ER bridge is still happening, and expanding space time all around you via this extra dimension. The artists impressions on the link show things separated they are not they should be overlayed and interlinked. Bla Bla etc.
All good avenues for discussion. A meeting of the minds isn’t always going to come from such discussions, but the discussion of differing ideas can be a broadening experience.
-
A 'white hole' is bs
You want me to believe in unicorns too?
-
People have such a hard time understanding relativity
But it doesn't seem to stop them from making a leap into the unknown, does it*?
Well, I build
Doesn't mean I'm correct though :)
But I think I am :))
==
Physics isn't that f*ng difficult, it's only when one to wants to disprove it that makes it so
A white hole is a pipe dream of free lunch
Did you have one?
-
Here is my pitch on dark matter:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537864#msg537864 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537864#msg537864)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143)
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy, and the BB which originated from a Mass less BH ER bridge is still happening, and expanding space time all around you via this extra dimension.
This discussion is starting to move from the general towards your personal theories and those would be best continued in the new theories section.
Thank you
-
I agree with that nudge to the lighter side.
-
This discussion is starting to move from the general towards your personal theories and those would be best continued in the new theories section.
White holes are derived from EFE which have proven to be accurate to date. Is it possible to continue the discussion ref white holes and ER bridges, which have not been discussed in any depth yet.
A theoretical singularity in a BH gives access to a ER bridge and a theoretical WH. If the WH is the opposite of a BH and matter can not exist in a ER bridge, what volume would the output of a WH cover in space time, and how would the output of a WH manifest itself.
Does anyone have any sentient constructive comments, or comments based on scientific observations that conclude that the expansion space time and the Big Bang are not caused by a WH
-
White holes are derived from EFE which have proven to be accurate to date. Is it possible to continue the discussion ref white holes and ER bridges, which have not been discussed in any depth yet.
Yes as long as you are talking about these in general and part of a balanced view of existing knowledge, rather than developing theories or speculations based on these eg:
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy
Remember, also that white holes are a mathematical construct with no evidence they exist.
It is worth bearing in mind that you won’t reach any real conclusions because you don’t really have the background to discuss this definitively. I say that because you were not aware of Alan Guth’s work and that in itself would require a few years of detailed study before you could make use of it. White holes, ER bridges and inflation are very involved mathematical subjects and you really do need a full toolkit to do them justice otherwise you are just groping in the dark.
New Theories allows you a much wider remit, you don’t need to have a detailed knowledge and you can speculate to a wider extent. Here you really need to stick to what is known rather than speculating and leaving people with the impression that you are experts explaining current state of knowledge.
EDIT PS I also notice that there are quite a few bits of misinformation here eg:
The HUP borrows energy from somewhere,
No it doesn’t. Some pop science articles have suggested it does and a few ‘loose explanations’ but it doesn’t.
-
Remember, also that white holes are a mathematical construct with no evidence they exist.
It is worth bearing in mind that you won’t reach any real conclusions because you don’t really have the background to discuss this definitively. I say that because you were not aware of Alan Guth’s work and that in itself would require a few years of detailed study before you could make use of it. White holes, ER bridges and inflation are very involved mathematical subjects and you really do need a full toolkit to do them justice otherwise you are just groping in the dark.
Einsteins Field Equations are the mathematical construct that suggest a White hole might exist, they also suggested Black holes might exist long before any one took them seriously. I guess no one wants to discuss white holes as a possible explanation for the expansion of the universe or the source of dark energy.
As for discussing what might come out of a ER bridge and how it might manifest itself, no one sentient is going to have a go.
Alan Guth has apparently written more than 60 papers on an expanding universe. Which paper would you suggest starting with? Do you have a copy you could post.
Edit I found most of Guths stuff is costly, however he did spend time to explain his expansion on this video
the expansion however is questionable apparently.
-
Einsteins Field Equations are the mathematical construct that suggest a White hole might exist, they also suggested Black holes might exist long before any one took them seriously.
Yes, Einstein’s Equations have proved to be very predictive and testable, but it doesn’t mean every prediction will have a practical, testable outcome. Some might require more energy, or specific conditions than are available.
I guess no one wants to discuss white holes as a possible explanation for the expansion of the universe or the source of dark energy.
As for discussing what might come out of a ER bridge and how it might manifest itself, no one sentient is going to have a go.
Well, no one none-sentient is going to understand the question :)
The real problem on this forum is finding people with enough understanding of theoretical physics to be able to discuss the matter meaningfully. Yes, theories like inflation are questionable and being debated, but this is a very specialist area. Remember, people like Alan Guth and other theoretical physicists have based their ideas (and their critique of ideas) on a very deep understanding of how particles, field equations etc are likely to behave under extreme conditions, but it is unlikely they have the time to come here and discuss these topics and what they offer in videos etc are very top level. There are some specialist physics fora where these topics can be discussed or questions asked and you will get knowledgeable answers, but unless this is your specialist subject you are unlikely to get very far in discussions, and anything offered in this section couldn’t be considered reliable.
Alan Guth has apparently written more than 60 papers on an expanding universe. Which paper would you suggest starting with? Do you have a copy you could post.
I’d try @PmbPhy, he was a research student of Alan’s and they keep in touch. You might be on his ignore list - reading through I notice he made the same comment re HUP that I did and you rejected it, which will be why he hasn’t joined the discussion.
-
I notice he made the same comment re HUP that I did and you rejected it, which will be why he hasn’t joined the discussion.
I did not reject the comment, it was a correction I accepted, but did not comment on.
-
The real problem on this forum is finding people with enough understanding of theoretical physics to be able to discuss the matter meaningfully.
Yes I started a thread on new theories "what space is", hoping to discuss meaningfully the nature of space and gave up, I was hoping for a more meaningful less speculative discussion with this thread by discussing white holes.
-
I notice he made the same comment re HUP that I did and you rejected it, which will be why he hasn’t joined the discussion.
I did not reject the comment, it was a correction I accepted, but did not comment on.
Ok, not sure how @PmbPhy would have interpreted it.
The real problem on this forum is finding people with enough understanding of theoretical physics to be able to discuss the matter meaningfully.
Yes I started a thread on new theories "what space is", hoping to discuss meaningfully the nature of space and gave up, I was hoping for a more meaningful less speculative discussion with this thread by discussing white holes.
Haven’t had a lot of free time recently, but was noticing @captcass mentioned that thread so I was going to take a look.
-
I have looked into white holes. At one point I considered them likely. Not in this universe though. If we had a contracting universe then maybe. This however is speculative and not mainstream. It can be discussed as such as long as it is not promoted as mainstream thought. You need some level of study to justify such speculation. This does not mean you need to be a qualified scientist. Although if you are not qualified it is incumbent upon you to justify your assertions with reliable evidence. In such a case you also need to take on board the comments and criticisms of those who are qualified.
-
I have looked into white holes. At one point I considered them likely. Not in this universe though. If we had a contracting universe then maybe. This however is speculative and not mainstream. It can be discussed as such as long as it is not promoted as mainstream thought. You need some level of study to justify such speculation. This does not mean you need to be a qualified scientist. Although if you are not qualified it is incumbent upon you to justify your assertions with reliable evidence. In such a case you also need to take on board the comments and criticisms of those who are qualified.
Thanks for that, I have no problem taking on board comments and critisisms. Can you inform me why a White hole is not a viable source for the BB in this universe, and why it is not the source of dark energy.
I have been left to ponder this subject on my own so may have lost the plot a little. I notice with the inflationary universe, it is normally represented as a cone expanding from a singularity into darkness. This would be like a White hole expanding inside a dimension where space time does not exist like inside a BH. Popalawski discusses this concept. Being Speculative would this be better viewed as the surface of the cone is ALL connected to the original singularity where space time still does not exist. Furthermore BH's existing inside the cone may be connected to the surface via an ER Bridge, further driving the expansion of space time from a none space time dimension. White holes I am thinking may be connected to all BH's in the universe. etc.
Any sentient guidance and comments would be appreciated.
-
I have a question for you. Do you have any understanding of differential geometry?
-
For those interested in studying the subject the following answer on quora discusses some of the considerations to take into account when choosing a text.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-self-study-book-on-differential-geometry-for-a-beginner
-
I have a question for you. Do you have any understanding of differential geometry?
What part of differential geometry do you suspect I do not understand. I assume you talking about grads divs and curls or more simply http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/22/translating-math-geek-into-eng/ :).
I have a couple of technical degrees(sadly not physics) that I would not have passed if I was not numerate :) however these were a few years ago (years soon turn into decades :( and rust sets in ).
I am intrigued, if you can raise the game to a higher level please do, I am literate and still have my textbooks.
-
What part of differential geometry do you suspect I do not understand. I assume you talking about grads divs and curls
No. That's vector calculus. The basics of differential geometry are described here:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/ma/ma.htm
-
I’d try @PmbPhy, he was a research student of Alan’s and they keep in touch.
That's incorrect. We're just friends. We talk physics a lot but I was never a student of his. I did my graduate work at Northeastern University, not MIT.
-
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/22/translating-math-geek-into-eng/
One thing I found in the past was that Ethan Siegel often explains things in a way that even I can understand. For example:
Well, one math geek statement is as follows: the curl of the gradient of a scalar field is always zero. What does this mean, in terms of our water? It means that I can take any topography I can find, invent, or even dream up.
I can drop a tiny droplet of water on it anywhere I like, and while the water may roll downhill (depending on the gradient), and while the water may spread out or narrow (depending on the divergence of the gradient), it will not start to rotate. For rotation to happen, you need something more than just a drop starting out on a hill, no matter how your hill is shaped! That’s what it means when someone says, “The curl of the gradient is zero.”
I must try to return to following him.
-
It seems Einstein is proven right yet again https://phys.org/news/2018-06-einstein-galaxy.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter .
The white hole is a part of his field equations, and is worth looking at. An ER bridge would require exotic matter to keep it open which has the opposite effect of gravity ie it is something like dark energy which is driving the expansion of the universe. The expansion is explained by Guth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth .
What I am thinking is that we may not be viewing the output from an ER bridge correctly.
Inside an ER bridge space is not defined. Why would an exit from an ER bridge be local to one point in space, except in star trek?
Dark Energy and Gravity can be regarded as differences in potential energy of space.
A number of theories suggest that gravity is caused by the absorbance of quantum fluctuations and dark energy is caused the appearance of quantum fluctuations in space, this would imply in a BH all Quantum fluctuations are absorbed. Equally other theories argue that gravity is caused by the contraction of space and the expansion of space is caused by dark energy, in this instance space is absorbed by a BH.
Space time does not exist without quantum fluctuations. Before any quantum fluctuations ever existed we would have a singularity, and a none defined area of space. This would represent a BH which if White holes can expand using Dark energy, Einstein may be right yet again.
Space may have evolved from a nothing to an infinity because it was inevitable. Could expansion of Space be being driven by the output of a wormhole connected to all points in space time.
-
Could expansion of Space be being driven by the output of a wormhole connected to all points in space time.
Could you explain your idea of how this might work.
-
Could you explain your idea of how this might work.
Since this has been moved to new theories I will take a few days and dream up a response for my general amusement, which I may post. Space is not fully understood by science so it does allow a little room for speculation, when asking questions one often gets contradictory answers or answers from nutters. I noted someone quoting Dr Chris Baird on other topics so I asked him for his opinion ref white holes. The following is his response
"Spacetime is a bit hard for us humans to understand intuitively in its complete form because it is different from other objects that we are used to in every day life. First of all, spacetime is literally a physical object. Before Einstien's theories were presented and verified, scientists could make the argument that spacetime itself is not an object, but rather is just a convenient way to describe the relationship between real objects. However, Einstein's discoveries force us to acknowledge spacetime as an independent, fundamental physical object. An object has an independent physical existence when it has a state and properties that can change and can be measured. Spacetime has curvature, which can be measured. You might say that spacetime curvature can only exist in the presence of mass/energy, and therefore is just a manifestation of the effect of one mass on another. However, this is not true. Spacetime curvature can exist in the absence of mass, energy, and any other object. One example is a gravitational wave. A gravitational wave is a traveling, fluctuating, curvature of spacetime. A mass is needed to create the gravitational wave, but once it is created, the wave travels away and becomes self-sustaining. Such a wave continues to exist millions of miles away from any other object. Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein's equations and have been verified experimentally. Again, once created, they exist independent of any mass, energy, or electromagnetic field. It is spacetime itself that is waving, and therefore spacetime is a physical object.
Now, it becomes strange because spacetime is very different from any other type of object in the universe. Spacetime itself has no mass. However, spacetime curvature can store energy and gravitational waves do carry energy. Furthermore, spacetime is the background in which all other objects exist and interact. Although you can in principle remove all the atoms, or all the apples, or all the electrons from a certain region, you can't remove spacetime from a certain region. So when we say that spacetime is a physical object that can be measured and manipulated, we have to be careful not let this lead us into thinking it is like other physical objects.
Regarding white holes, you need to realize that at this point they are more like science fiction than solid science. The popular media and some speculative scientists love to bat around the idea of a white hole. However, most physicists do not consider that white holes actually exist in our physical universe or could exist. Yes, Einstein's field equations by themselves allow white holes, but only in toy universes that do not match our actual universe. There are several problems. First of all, there is no physical mechanism that could create a white hole. Secondly, a white hole would require spacetime to curve in a way that we have never seen before and seems at odds with everything we know about the universe (roughly speaking, it leads to repulsive static gravitational forces). If you tried to create a white hole using matter, it would have to be made out of non-sensical/exotic matter. Otherwise, the white hole must have always existed, which is not possible in a universe with a finite lifetime. Furthermore, a white hole is inherently unstable. If you managed to almost create one, it would destroy itself before you actually succeeded. White holes are the opposite of black holes. Black holes have regular spacetime curvature, can be created with regular matter, and are inherently stable. Any irregularity in a black hole's surface naturally smooths itself down, with the excess energy and spacetime curvature irregularity carried away by gravitational waves. In contrast, white holes have non-physical spacetime curvature, must be created using non-sensical matter, and are inherently unstable.
Now, I am not saying that the non-existence of white holes is 100% certain. We never know where scientific discoveries will take us. Rather, I am saying that if we stick to our actual universe (rather than playing with toy universes, which can be rewarding), an intellectually honest scientist that sticks to facts can't have much to say about them. Even if they do end up existing, they would require new physical laws, and until we have those laws, anything I say would be unhelpful speculation.
As far as we can tell, the expansion of the universe on a cosmic scale is not driven by anything. Rather it is an innate property of spacetime itself. In other words, any time you have a cosmic-scale region of space with no matter in it (or evenly-distributed matter), spacetime in this region will naturally expand on its own. That's just what spacetime does. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang and inertia. In other words, the expansion of the universe is very different from an expanding fireball caused by an explosion. Scientists call the cause of the universe's expansion "dark energy" because it acts like an energy, but it is not a literal energetic particle that fills space. It is just the nature of spacetime. Dark energy is not something you can collect and use. In other words, "dark energy" is not actually a self-existing physical object. Rather, it is a convenient way for humans to describe how spacetime behaves on the cosmic scale when filled uniformly with matter.
The laws of thermodynamics are local laws and therefore do not apply to the universe as a whole on the cosmic scale. The universe as a whole does indeed not obey thermodynamics, but this is not a problem, because it does not have to. These are difficult topics to straighten out because they involve concepts that are exotic (we don't encounter them in everyday life), and because they are at the edge of our understanding.
- Dr. Baird
"
Not everything is 100% certain in science. White holes are maybe possibly possible and they require exotic energy which repels like dark energy :) Space is full of dark energy and it repels like the inside of a wormhole :) could we be existing on the inside of a wormhole. There are a lot of things to consider about the nature of space and how it has evolved, gravity and dark energy are opposites, one absorbs the other. How an ER and EPR bridge redistributes energy in space time from a singularity is interesting.
I note no sentient responses were given to my previous post.
Edit a starting point for discussion might be the ER = EPR theory, and what that would appear like in space. https://myalberteinstein.com/2015/11/21/the-einstein-rosen-bridge-and-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox-er-and-epr-wormhole-and-entanglement/
Edit Edit both EPR and ER bridges suggest there is a way around space tie via another dimension etc