[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 1 of 10
Introduction
There are several books and papers pointing out how the main physical constants that define the properties and evolution of our universe are very finely balanced if complex atoms stars and even life itself can exist.  In his book Life and the Universe Lee Smolin suggests that it appears that these constants are very close to those needed to create the maximum number of stellar mass black holes. He goes on to suggest that this may be a hint that some sort of evolutionary process could be involved.  These initial concepts are presented in this excellent you tube Video By space time

This short note examines this possibility and aims to establish and takes in much further with more details of the possible processes involved to create a credible and disprovable hypothesis that could be expanded by others with greater skills than myself.
 
Background
Firstly a bit of background about well established current thinking in cosmology.  From observation and the extrapolation of the physical laws as currently understood our universe had a very hot smooth extreme density beginning followed by expansion cooling and the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies and a generalised stringy structure of clusters of galaxies. It will end with a slow cooling and fading into nothingness.  The origins of the universe and the values of the critical physical constants that define its evolution are in the absence of any evidence initially considered to be set randomly consequently it appears that a universe with properties like ours would be highly improbable. To get round this problem there is a tendency to think that there must be a vast number of isolated bubble universes existing in a Multiverse.  Alternatively it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort of sentient creator of universes.  Both of these approaches are very philosophically unattractive and stilted
 
Initial thinking
If a universe through its life could create other universes a totally different scenario could be imagined  furthermore if there existed among all the possibilities one (or more) ways in which a universe could create during its life other isolated universes substantially similar to itself these sorts of universes could rapidly dominate any other universes that could happen by random events and make it probable that we might find ourself in a universe of this kind.

Proposition
I propose to suggest a way in which this might be possible totally in line with current observational and theoretical physics and astronomy and also suggest that it is tractable to current and near future theoretical and practical skills and potentially disprovable and will post more on this topic shortly  however if you wish to preempt this.  current work in progress this area may be seen on https://iankimber.org .

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 2 of 10

What are the basic requirements for a multiverse consisting of evolving universes?
 
    An origin for universes
Firstly we need to have a process for the origin of universes.  Currently most thinking avoids this question by saying "some sort" of quantum process could kick things off.   This may well be enough at the very beginning.  However for an evolutionary process we need more.  We need a process in which a universe can itself, or by some interaction between universes can create other universes.
 
    What would its properties be?
It would have to be where part of the universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation.  Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.
 
    Are we aware of such a process?
Currently we are well aware of a process like this. That is, the creation of a black hole during the latter stages in the life of a high mass star.  This is the most common sort of black hole in our universe.  So that is a good place to start.  The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?.  The simple answer is that the process of collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy! 
This is simply provable by considering the energy released by a thin massive spherical shell of matter collapsing under the gravity of the mass inside the shell that is also collapsing towards a theoretical singularity.
This energy  is (largely)  invisible to observers outside the black hole and is ample to create a universe that is large and complex.
 
    The results of the process will probably depend on starting conditions
That is the sort of universe that is created by this process will be dependant to some extent  on the actual conditions for the universe creation   It therefore follows that having a reasonably precisely defined process for the creation of a new universe would be a good idea.  The compressed collapse of the core of a high mass star will probably define quite precisely the moment the event horizon first forms.  This gives us the conditions that we need for the process.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 3 of 10

   The evolution of physical laws
 We now need to think a little more deeply about the potential "evolution" of the physical laws and "constants" that define how these physical laws interact.  At this stage In the thinking process I will discuss the ideas in the most general way.
 
The first part of this process is to stress the fact that it is important to bear in mind the physics underlying the way our universe operates.  Quantum mechanical uncertainty defines a “veil” of space and time within which we cannot observe individual events but only observe the collective results of what is going on behind the veil.  These results are described with great precision by the mathematics of quantum field theory.   The basic mathematics of this involves integrals of wave functions over all of space and time (within the universe) describing in a probabilistic way the positions and motions of particles that can be observed outside of the veil of uncertainty.  Within this veil almost anything that is allowed can (and possibly does) happen.
 
The very success of the pure mathematics of quantum field theory has to an extent hidden the physical insights underlying the origins of quantum mechanics from more recent generations of mathematical physicists.   Let us go back to the early origins of quantum theory and consider the original de Broglie model of the Hydrogen atom which led to the full development of quantum theory.
 
This showed that the electron orbitals of the isolated hydrogen atom were essentially "cavity resonances" of the electron De Broglie wavelength.  This is an experimentally observable wave property of electrons that is defined by the electron's momentum.   Considering an electron as a particle "orbiting" the nucleus under electrostatic attraction it is clear that under certain conditions the De Broglie wavelength will resonate with the orbital period.  Quantum uncertainty adds "noise" to this process resulting in the familiar statistical spread of the orbitals determined by the results of quantum electrodynamics.  The process of adding in this noise involves infinite integrals over all of space and time.  Following this sort of dynamic analysis to more complex atoms gets extremely difficult particularly as energies get higher and momenta get relativistic.
 
High energy nucleon interactions producing mesons were also originally viewed as resonances producing subatomic particles that were metastable.
 
All this was superseded by the mathematical simplification of the Dirac notation and quantum electro and chromo dynamics. This takes these infinite integrals over all of space and time (within the universe) as symbols that can be manipulated.  This has tended to hide the underlying physical principles of these integrals from succeeding generations of quantum physicists.
 
String theory also sees particles as resonances in waves that create persistent effects.  What I am trying to illustrate is that there are "physical" processes going on inside the uncertainty veil, which produce longer term observable effects.   Current teaching of quantum mechanics tends to ignore this physical background in favour of the much more precise and successful pure mathematical quantum field theory.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 4 of 10

The nature of our physical laws and the constants that determine their interaction.
 
The values of the critical physical constants are often described as a result of "random" symmetry breaking as the universe cools from its initial extremely hot conditions.  However physical experience shows that in real life when symmetries are broken in this way what happens is usually far from random, often producing structure of great order, because of the interactions of the particles involved. A good example of this is crystallisation.  This also applies in the quantum world.  Even a glassy transition to a semi random and chaotic but stable structure has order in it.  What I am trying to say is the laws that we observe are not the result of random but resonant processes that effectively extend the time for which any structures associated with underlying interaction probabilities exist for long enough to be observed outside of the veil of the uncertainty principle.  The suggestion therefore is that the processes that will be favoured as things settle out are the ones that will extend interaction longevity the greatest.  That is resonant and or recycling processes.  This creates an evolutionary drive in physical processes that may be initially seen to be purely random. It also fits well with the mathematical process that calculates the probabilities of various observations happening.
 
Mathematics is and always will be a powerful tool for analysis and synthesis.  However it does have limitations in that physical process simplifications always have to be made to the model to allow the process to be modeled.   A good example of this can be seen in "string theory" in which an arbitrary concept of a resonant vibrating string is used to replace the concept of point particles.  This has produced a vast array of potential models which could possibly result in a universe like ours but it says nothing about the nature of the "string",  which is essentially the simplest concept after a point and it allows awkward infinities to be avoided.  All this work is good but it will need some sort of physical insight to point the way towards the more likely models.  I would like to suggest that the simplest physical insight is that of a local space-time vortex creating a linear structure along its axis.  This could initially be conceived considering gravitationally driven vortices in space time along classical lines similar to the de Broglie resonant electrons and that the development of a concept of relativistic space time computational fluid dynamics could prove interesting.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 5 of 10

Real and Imaginary Concepts
 
The main mathematics of quantum field theory operates using imaginary or complex numbers and in order to return the probability of a particular quantum event it is required convert them back to real numbers.  Wave theory and standard engineering understand these arise from oscillatory or repetitive processes.  This could be a hint to the nature of the underlying nature of the physical processes behind the mathematics.  Please note I am not in any way implying that there is any sort of absolute solution which gets rid of the probabilistic nature of the quantum processes but that like the original De Broglie there are underlying resonant drivers involved.
 
Moving On
 
The next stage is to look a little deeper at the two processes that I have described above and check if it is possible, using physical rather than pure mathematical processes, in the most basic sense, to end up with a universe as large and complex as ours by applying them. Hopefully this will then be able to be linked into the vast array of mathematical thinking that already exists and lead to a real breakthrough in fundamental physics and cosmology leading to a true "theory of everything".
 

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 6 of 10

The Continued Collapse inside Black Hole
 
The first and most obvious question to answer is, could a universe as large and complex as ours come from the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon?
 
It is accepted that the basic physics does not change as the event horizon is crossed and locally there are no significant changes other than the increasing gravity gradient. Let us then consider the collapse of material inside a stellar mass black hole starting immediately after an event horizon has first formed.  Let us initially consider the simple Schwarzschild or non-rotating and balanced charge case .
 
The collapsing material is hot and turbulent and will continue heat up as a result of the release of gravitational potential energy being turned into kinetic energy.   As it collapses further the gravitational field continues to increase as the inverse square of the radius.
 
Let us consider the collapse of a spherical mass from radius r to r/2.  Simple mechanics shows that an individual particle at the surface of this mass will gain energy in proportion to the reciprocal of the radius change  ie 1/r  as the radius change is r/2   the value of the radius disappears!  that is a constant amount of energy is converted from potential to kinetic energy for every halving of the radius of the collapsing mass.  This will tend to infinity as r approaches zero.  So the total energy confined within the event horizon heads towards infinity.
 
This collapse is over a finite distance and takes a finite time. but the conditions under which it takes place allow the particles to have a vast number of interactions while it takes place.  It follows that in the collapse of even a small stellar mass black hole there is therefore plenty of energy available to create a whole new universe as large as or even larger than our own observable universe.  There is also sufficient time for particles to interact and multiply by pair production as the temperature rises.  Note the creation of new mass by pair production will also increase the gravitational field and cool the the collapsing mass.  With this amount of energy available inside the event horizon any subsequent material falling into the black hole after the initial collapse event has taken place is largely irrelevant and will be discounted at this stage of this presentation.
 
Mathematics clearly states that once the event horizon has formed, the matter inside a non-rotating black hole collapses to a mathematical singularity of zero dimensions containing an infinite quantity of energy within a finite time.  This is clearly very bad physics and does not make sense in the real world but it is what all the textbooks say and most people accept.  Essentially I see this as a way of saying, something must happen but we have no idea what!  I have been unable to find any analysis of what might be an attempt to work towards real physical solution to this by analysing this collapse in detail as far as our current understanding of high energy physics allows but  I will offer you a simple and fully plausible one based totally upon accepted physics now.
 
Let us assume we have a body collapsing under gravity in empty space and forming a black hole.  Let us assume that no other particles or radiation are entering the hole.
 
Consider the instant that the event horizon forms.  This is the moment that photons cannot escape "to infinity" however particles will be interacting at the collapse surface and radiating photons and particles in all directions.  Photons and particles created by interactions close to the surface of the collapsing mass can always escape some short distance from the contracting central mass before being dragged back into the main body of matter.  The photons will travel the furthest.  Let us call this limit the "photon sphere". The collapsing mass will be inside this "photon sphere" although the particles will be travelling at speeds quite close to the velocity of light so this will not be very much inside this limit.  The "photon sphere" represents a sort of second "event horizon" defining the limit of the radiation from the collapsing mass.  As the gravitational field increases this photon sphere will contract with the rest of the mass.  Between this and the real event horizon in our universe superficially there is absolutely nothing other than the quantum mechanical vacuum as long as no matter or radiation is falling into the hole.
 
Now this Photon sphere may represent the “firewall” inside a black hole that recent quantum studies have talked about but the important thing it is not as you initially cross the first event horizon to infinity but much deeper inside the structure.
 
Now is there absolutely nothing between the event horizon to infinity and the firewall?    It is currently accepted that the event horizon of a black hole to our universe radiates energy in the form of Hawking radiation and that this can cause black holes in totally empty space to decay very slowly to nothing.  The total energy radiated is proportional to the gravitational gradient at the event horizon. (see ref below) This energy loss is incredibly small for all gravitational gradients that we can expect to encounter in our universe.  However as the gradient increases it increases without limit.  That is, a gravitational gradient radiates energy away from a gravitating source into its photon sphere.
 
This result implies that the photon sphere of material collapsing inside the event horizon of a Schwarzschild Black Hole will radiate energy in proportion to the gravitational gradient at its surface.   This radiation will of course eventually fall back into the hole but it will take some time doing it, let us call this time the "return time". 
 
The rate of energy loss over the return time is in effect a drain on the total energy in the hole.   As the main mass continues to contract towards the "singularity" and the gravitational gradients increase further this energy loss rate will increase as the inverse square of the radius  (source http://http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ )  The energy gain by the collapse as worked out above increases only as the inverse first power of the radius.  This means that the energy loss would eventually overtake the energy gain from gravity and the structure will become a stable (tiny) radiating fuzzball of an incredible but non infinite quantity of energy. 
 
Note this estimate is only very rough and does not take into account the effect of changes in the return time.   Again using  http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  and inputting that the radiated energy should be around  10e20 solar luminosities to approximately equal that of the whole observable universe comes out with the result that the radius would be around the Planck length.  However small this is still vastly bigger than the infinitesimal size of a mathematical point.  It may also be the starting point for our first and most important constant, the constant of quantum mechanics itself, the Planck constant.
 
The non-rotating black hole is of course also a mathematical simplification.  All black holes will contain some angular momentum and follow the Kerr structure.  This approach will be the start of the next stage of the argument.
 

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 7 of 10

A more detailed analysis of a Rotating black hole inside its event horizon
 
     Part 1 An overall view of the collapse process
 
Firstly let us assume for simplicity that the angular momentum is (slightly) less than the absolute maximum that the mass of the hole may contain and that no further matter or radiation are coming into the hole.   The gravitational collapse continues inside the event horizon.  The initial collapse will continue, the particles will interact and the material will heat up further.  Let us assume that it is rotating as a fluid body and eventually the outer surface will be rotating with a velocity approaching that of light at the equator and this cannot contract further.  Particle interactions will then cause the angular momentum to be shared out and the inner particles will gain more angular momentum and it will settle down to a toroidal structure heading towards the theoretical "ring singularity" as described by the Kerr solution to the equations.  (see  virial theorem)
 
It is unlikely that there is no residual angular momentum in other dimensions so as this settling down continues a toroidal rotation in one direction around the orbital axis will happen and the end result is likely to be a toroidal surface. Particles will be spiralling round the position of the theoretical ring singularity.   However a significant local change has taken place. There has been a change in the local dimensionality from spherical (3 dimensions) to cylindrical (2 dimensions) which means that the local gravity follows an inverse first power law rather than an inverse square law.  (see the appendix dimensionality of universes and conservation laws) this slows down any collapse allows more freedom of movement and will result in the particles oscillating about the theoretical ring singularity axis.
 
Now consider in detail what happens on the smaller scale as the collapse continues.  As the temperature rises, collisions between particles will become more violent and particle antiparticle pairs will be created.  This will in effect drain energy and angular velocity from the system and reduce the temperature rise. The increased mass will also allow the torus to collapse to a smaller diameter thus releasing more gravitational energy.
 
Electron pair production cooling processes have already been considered as the process driving some rare exceptionally violent large supernovas.
 
A balance of annihilation and creation of particles will be achieved but it is known that there can be a slight imbalance that allow one form of matter to dominate in time this may well be related to the final stable geometry established.  This means that the collapse process will create a lot more matter(or antimatter?).   The collapse process will also gradually cause a cooling down of the temperature as the particles and radiation settle down to their orbits the energy differentials reduce and the mean free time between collisions will increase.
 
So far there is one big omission in this analysis and that is the effect that all this is happening with the particles moving in orbits at relativistic velocities and the effect of frame dragging or gravitomagnetism has not been considered these effects cannot easily be included in this thought experiment at this time and will probably require more expert analysis than I can provide but here is a suggestion. one of the main analyses of the Kerr black hole shows a gravitational repulsion effect in some areas of the space around the ring singularity and this leads us on to the next question.
 

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 8 of 10

  Part 2  The Reversal Problem
I understand from comments in other review papers there are some mathematical Physicists working on the problem of converting a collapsing system into an expanding "big bang".  clearly this is a vital requirement for the concepts presented here to work and currently I can think of three physical properties that might do this of which any or all may describe the process of converting a collapse towards a singularity to a big bang when seen from the point of view of the particles involved.
 
To clear up any uncertainty it is clearly not possible  whatever happens for the results to explode out of the event horizon because that is irrevocably sealed and limited by the physical laws in our or any other similar universe.  There are however plenty more dimensions available for expansion to occur because all main theories of everything have far more than the conventional three of space and one of time available to them.
 
          Firstly Supersymmetry
Supersymmetry includes both bosonic and fermionic particles of all types this could include the concept of a gravitino a particle that interacts only through gravity but has the property of fermionic exclusion.  This in effect will create a repulsive gravity effect and would reverse collapse provided it‘s interaction couplings were appropriate to prevent it from becoming totally relativistic at the energies involved in the final stages of collapse when it would be generated. 
 
          Secondly  Matter- Antimatter symmetry 
There is a broken symmetry between matter and antimatter that is as yet unexplained and this could be caused by the geometry of the collapse, which is not totally symmetrical.  This would also play a part in establishing the large-scale geometry of the resulting universe, which may be detectable at the limits in our universe.
 
          Thirdly Relativistic dilations
It may just be a relativistic effect of the way a universe looks from the point of view of something that is inside it.   That is, what are really small dimensions just "look" large because of the coherent behavior of the particles involved.  Remember relativity says time and space always look perfectly "normal" to you and with things that are moving in the same way and in a similar gravitational field to you.   Time and space only distort in your perspective when you look to places where fields and velocities are different that is at a distance.  Let us look at this third and as I see it most important effect
 

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Page 9 of 10

Part 3  Local view of the particles and space time
 
This is a vital part of this thought experiment.  Relativity rules apply!  There is a strong tendency for people to visualise black holes as looking from the outside as if the event horizon was transparent this is bad thinking, it is important to consider what this "universe" looks like from the point of view of the particles involved as the space time collapses towards this theoretical ring (or toroidal) singularity.
 
Orbital motion implies that there is always a certain amount of coherency in the particle movements.  Initially the temperature will rise as gravitational energy is released and then “cool down” as particles are created and motions become more and more coherent,  The gravitational field and potential will become higher and particle velocities closer and closer to the velocity of light and particle interactions less frequent.
 
Although the particles are moving in a tight set of toroidal "orbits" around a linear orbit around the main centre of gravity,  from the point of view of the individual particles time dilation will mean that they will become more spaced out from their own point of view.
 
It is also important to consider the effects of the local "dimensional restriction" on the conservation laws.  The classic inverse square law requires the existence of three local dimensions. 
 
Now the standard texts describe that inside the event horizon space becomes time like and time space like.  Roger Penrose with his Penrose diagrams of space and time considers the possibility of moving past "the singularity" to get to another universe like a wormhole.  Can I now suggest that we consider that the "time like" space collapses towards a linear or toroidal surface singularity to become time in a new universe  and the "space like" time expands to become space in a set of dimensions different from the space that has just collapsed.
 
It is now interesting to note that antimatter is often described in texts as identical to ordinary matter running backwards through time so it seems likely that our new universe could be dominated by what is in our universe called antimatter.  It is also interesting to note that in a paper by Max Tegmark there are two stable universe conditions one with three dimensions and one of time and one with three dimensions of time and one of space but this latter universe contains only tachyons i.e. particles travelling faster than light now relativity states that particles travelling faster than light “move backwards in time” that is they would be identical to antiparticles in our universe.   Please note particle antiparticle asymmetry  is an important symmetry breaking that is not discussed properly in the standard theory of the development of our own big bang but is now observed in high energy physics experiments.
 
This could now represent a process similar to our observed big bang however the process has also been "seeded" with particles from our universe and although there may be changes on physical laws,  There will be restraints caused by this seeding.
 
After this collapse process has happened, further material may fall through the original event horizon  but it will appear only as a small number of extremely high energy (antimatter?)  particles in the vast new universe that has in effect expanded from the small amount of matter that first created the "singularity" in the black hole. This may result in one of the potentially observable confirmations of these concepts.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

ADDENDUM 

The above 9 pages plus page 0 below completes my first presentation on this complete topic
There are partial presentation on these concepts in the "new theories" area about 5 or 6 years ago

I have not posted or answered questions here for some years and had thought these pages had gone off air

This is a fuller development of ideas I presented some time ago

I would appreciate comments and confirmation that I have not made any fundamental mistakes in what I think is a concept well worth some serious study.

For a look at my work in progress and other approaches to describing this idea go to https://iankimber.org

[Halc]

Oh, and welcome back after a seeming 5 year hiatus.

From reply 1:

What would its properties be?
It would have to be where part of the universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation.  Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.

This is a begging description. Black holes are a premise, and here we are stating that its properties would be much like that of a black hole. Fine and dandy, but it doesn't justify the text below that congratulates itself for finding something that meets this requirement.
So I don't see why creation of a new universe would need to leave behind a shadow.  My mother didn't particularly leave behind a shadow when creating the independent offspring of me, so not sure how this property is necessary.
As for 'seeding', there needs to be a mechanism like DNA to pass on charateristics from the parent to the child so the child is similar, but still slightly different (mutated) so that some kind of natural selection (generating more/better black holes) can occur.
 

The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?.  The simple answer is that the process of collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy! 

It violates thermodynamic law to say this. Infinite density at a singularity is not unexpected, but it isn't infinite energy.  The energy is limited to the mass of the black hole, say a large star.  Gravitational potential energy is negative, so there is no net gain of energy of the system.

On the flip side, it is posited that there is a net energy/mass of zero in our universe, so big piles of energy are not required to make one.

This is simply provable by considering the energy released by a thin massive spherical shell of matter collapsing under the gravity of the mass inside the shell that is also collapsing towards a theoretical singularity.

I think the proponents of this idea do suggest that matter does make its way into the interior and not get stuck at the event horizon, but this does lead to some paradoxes which must be resolved.  In particular, any event within a black hole is in the future light cone of any event just outside of it in our spacetime.  That means anything in there takes indefinite time (our frame) to do so, and since the black hole has a finite lifespan (it will evaporate via Hawking radiation in some finite time), the black hole will be gone before any matter can make its way inside.  The black hole is gone before anything inside 'happens'. This needs to be resolved.

[Kryptid]

The fecund universe model predicts that neutron stars should have an upper mass limit of around 2 solar masses. Not that long ago, a neutron star with a mass of 2.14 solar masses was detected. So make of that what you will.

[Bill S]

Hi Soul Surfer.  I’d like to echo Halc’s welcome back.  This has nothing to do with the thread, but just a couple of days ago I found in my notes a Doc entitled “Soul Surfer on Hawking Radiation”.  Checking the date of the original I found it was a response to my question of 14.10.2010.  That could well have been my first post on TNS. 

My response:

Thanks SS, in over 100 P S books I have yet to find an explanation that comes near yours.

still holds good.  I hope to find time to read this thread; there could be more gems about. 

[CPT ArkAngel]

Hi SoulSurfer, glad to see you are still surfing...

First, I think we should discuss the necessity of a multiverse. The fact that humans exist should not be a reason for a multiverse. If you accept that the simplest model explaining everything should be the best, then only the number of necessary parameters should be an indication of a possible multiverse. The more parameters, the more probable it is. Each parameter of our universe, if irreducible, represents a physical asymmetry in this universe. Each other universe would fill one or many asymmetries of our universe so that in the end, you get fewer parameters. A singular universe still necessitates many irreducible parameters. You could think of something like the number of dimensions + one or two (5 or 6).

There are three possibilities, either there are parallel universes (a multiverse in space and time), a singular cyclic universe with a single set or a singular universe with a different set for each cycle (a multiverse in time).

In the absence of a unified theory, it is difficult to know how many parameters we need to describe our own universe. With a unified theory, the number of parameters should decrease substantially. Moreover, any theory containing divergences or infinities is irrational, which means it has no satisfying solution. Only a theory containing a finite space and energy in finite cycles over an infinite time is rational. Anything outside of this implies an irrational assumption from the beginning. Some people believe the Universe is irrational, I don't for obvious reasons if you are a true scientist.

Personally, I would bet for a singular universe with a single set but there is still a possibility that dark matter is the gravitational interaction of a few parallel universes which have there own electromagnetic interactions. Observations do not prove nor disprove this hypothesis yet, so it is still a possibility.

Unless we cannot unify parameters to reduce their number substantially, I don't see the necessity for more universes than that.

A multiverse should have only one virtue and it must be simplification.

Before suggesting a multiverse, we should try to unify the many physical theories we already have...

A last important reasonable assumption is that the entire Universe is always connected somehow. How can you divide the whole of everything that exist? It is not only a whole but The Whole... And all particles should be connected only once to all other particles for any present interaction to avoid infinities, otherwise, each particle would be connected to itself in an infinite series of loops. A flat space seems more than reasonable in this context.

[CPT ArkAngel]

From what I have found, the gravitational redshift and the momentum redshift would smeared the wavelength of the particle over the horizon as it approaches it. Any particle and any black hole have a necessary residual rotation which will prevent a true horizon to form. Particles will be stuck rotating with the BH before touching the virtual horizon. At the Big Bang, it might not have been the case... Only one Schwarzschild black hole to rule them all... It is a good hypothesis, in the absence of an outside space, a static black hole becomes a naked 'singularity'. Everything is within a Planck time and a Planck length, with no center... hypothetically speaking, of course... The symmetry becomes maximal and the entropy is minimal.

The particle going through the horizon from its own point of view is highly questionable. According to Einstein, the different points of view of the different observers must be reduced to simple delays of observation. It means that over all the history of the universe, all observers would see the exact same history of all particles to respect the chain of causal events.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Thank you all for your replies  now to get down to the answers which I will take in chronological order

Halc. 12:25   15 nov 
Clearly my title "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology possible?"  declares my bias.  I am trying to explain how I believe that an evolutionary cosmology could work within the bounds of current thinking  and cannot expand all the arguments in this restricted format.  For several views of my thesis go to my website and follow through into my PBworks PublicWiki.   Note I do not normally allow others to comment on this wiki it is just that I am used to working and organising my thinking in this format rather than a conventional web page.

       http://iankimber.pbworks.com/w/page/10732331/FrontPage

This text did not include the other attempt by a recongnised experienced scientist to take this approach to cosmology  that is Fred Hoyle's "continuous creation"  hypothesis back in the 1940s-50s  (I remember it well!)  This suggested that a continuously expanding universe could be a stasis by the creation of a very small and undetectable number of hydrogen atoms from the quantum mechanical vacuum.  This was proved not to be the case by the proof that our universe evolves and changes through time (big bang theory).

Halc. 15:59   15 nov 
The shadow left by your mother was your umbilicus and the placenta which came out some time after you were born. In the same way the black hole that internally created a universe as large and complex as ours in a different set of dimensions from ours will fade out and vanish in time.

Read further and think.  Consider the physical evolution of particles atoms and stars through time  which we understand quite well and use the analogy to consider ow physical laws might evolve.  physical evolution in a cooling universe favours things that last longest in time. our laws settle out forma an infinite dimensional potential the way they do because they tend to favour the things that last longest in a metastable state.

Thermodynamics is not violated by my proposals and the energy (and mass!) created by the collapse of the matter inside the event horizon cannot be observed outside.

Now a couple of general notes to thinkers on this subject

      There is no reason to believe that physical laws change abruptly as an event horizon is crossed.  Also the gravity and gravitational gradient at event horizons in our universe are not excessive in terms of individual particle interactions.  That only come much later in the collapse well inside the first horizon.

      What we see of material entering the event horizon is irrelevant what happens is what the individual leptons and quarks "experience" as they interact furiously a vast number of times in their relatively long passage towards the theoretical "singularity".

[Halc]

Thank you all for your replies  now to get down to the answers which I will take in chronological order

Halc. 12:25   15 nov 
Clearly my title "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology possible?"  declares my bias.  I am trying to explain how I believe that an evolutionary cosmology could work within the bounds of current thinking  and cannot expand all the arguments in this restricted format.

So just explain how it could work.  I don't mind the bias, but I mind the dismissing of the prevailing views by calling them "philosophically unattractive and stilted".  The seeming fine tuning in fact attracts much attention from the 'creator' stance and is pushed as significant evidence for the stance.  If you lack the space to take down the 'creator' view, then fine, but what I protest is the waving it away with reasons that don't hold water.

I've heard of the evolution proposal but hadn't seen it fleshed out in any detail.

In the same way the black hole that internally created a universe as large and complex as ours in a different set of dimensions from ours will fade out and vanish in time.

This view isn't all that different from the fractal eternal inflation theory that has each 'bubble' being birthed from some parent universe. The differences are that it isn't necessarily via black holes, and more importantly, no mention of a selection process that results in the tuning (as opposed to the more unlikely randomness) that we see.

Read further and think.  Consider the physical evolution of particles atoms and stars through time  which we understand quite well and use the analogy to consider ow physical laws might evolve.  physical evolution in a cooling universe favours things that last longest in time. our laws settle out forma an infinite dimensional potential the way they do because they tend to favour the things that last longest in a metastable state.

Black holes will indeed eventually be predominant, perhaps even over burnt out suns and rocks and such, but a universe in that state is also less likely to be observed.

Thermodynamics is not violated by my proposals and the energy (and mass!) created by the collapse of the matter inside the event horizon cannot be observed outside.

We can compute them using the laws that we know, and I was suggesting you've made an error in doing so. The details were in reply 5, but I was waiting for a reply before diving into that.
If you're going to wave away thermodynamic law due to the fact that we cannot observe the inside, then you also preclude yourself from positing what goes on in there, and your idea depends on that.
What I personally see is either a flat space with no time at all (and no matter, no change), or a uniform finite universe with material that appears everywhere (just like in ours) but is in some kind of negative expansion.  An observer there would perhaps predict a big crunch, as was predicted for ourselves until they measured the acceleration of our own expansion.

I know a little about relativity, and this r/1 -> r/2 free energy thing doesn't work for multiple reasons, one of which is that is assumes Newtonian mathematics, and doesn't even produce new energy in that case.

Now a couple of general notes to thinkers on this subject

      There is no reason to believe that physical laws change abruptly as an event horizon is lost.

Don't you need to posit this? How is evolution to take place if the laws are identical inside as they were outside?

      What we see of material entering the event horizon is irrelevant what happens is what the individual leptons and quarks "experience" as they interact furiously a vast number of times in their relatively long passage towards the theoretical "singularity".

Is it furious?  We're supposedly in a parent black hole ourselves and I don't see this furious interaction. I don't see a theoretical singularity which is drawing everything in. Quite the opposite.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Thank you all for your arguments.  This is just the sort of criticism I was hoping for.  What I hear quoted to me is a lot of standard quotes from the many books that I have read on the properties of black holes and our vision of particles/objects that interact with them as viewed from the outside.

Can I stress again that What I am talking about is what based on our knowledge of physics and relativity will happen in the early stages of the collapse inside the event horizon 

To help illustrate this let me consider an isolated large black hole with a mass of around 10E9 solar masses  the sort of thing that exists at the centre of many large galaxies but without the complications of a lot of other material nearby orbiting it at high speeds  I will use the results from  the website http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  to illustrate what it event horizon looks like.

Its radius is   19.75  AU  or about  3E9 KM   Very similar to the orbit of Uranus

Its surface gravity is  around 1550 earth gravities.    Compare this with the surface gravity of a white dwarf star of 350,000 gravities.   Physical laws are not distorted under these conditions.

The gravity gradient at the surface is only  about 1E-9  Less than that on the earth

It is quite clear that a theoretical space ship could cross this without any stress problems

Furthermore interacting particles at around the velocity of light could easily cause some to slow down and drop through this horizon with no problems.

Consider now a typical ten solar mass black hole with a radius of about 30 KM  the surface gravitational stress is
10e8 metres/second per meter.  Consider the gravitational stress on a hydrogen atom with a radius of about 0.5A as it passes across the event horizon.  It would be slightly distorted but not torn apart.  Large objects may be torn apart and spaghettified but atoms face no problems (other than the high temperature interactions with each other!)

So I am pretty sure that there is nothing special about the event horizon itself except that you are no longer interacting with the rest of the universe outside of it.

The rest of my arguments then follow using current well established gravitational and quantum mechanical theory.

So there is no reason not to look into the behaviour of material during the collapse inside the black hole right up to the energy limits set by the large Hadron collider.  This will be considerably short of the final limits where the collapse turns into an expansion as a nascent new big bang but may help to understand the processes that will be happening like the creation of lots and lots more particles and mass.

[Halc]

Can I stress again that What I am talking about is what based on our knowledge of physics and relativity will happen in the early stages of the collapse inside the event horizon

Again, there are differing opinions on this. The no-interior one says there is no inside in which anything can happen.

To help illustrate this let me consider an isolated large black hole with a mass of around 10E9 solar masses  the sort of thing that exists at the centre of many large galaxies but without the complications of a lot of other material nearby orbiting it at high speeds  I will use the results from  the website http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  to illustrate what it event horizon looks like.

Its radius is   19.75  AU  or about  3E9 KM   Very similar to the orbit of Uranus

Its surface gravity is  around 1550 earth gravities.    Compare this with the surface gravity of a white dwarf star of 350,000 gravities.   Physical laws are not distorted under these conditions.

Acceleration to hold position at any black hole event horizon is infinite, not 1550. Not sure where you're getting that figure. If it wasn't infinite, then a ship with enough power to pull 2000 g's would be able to get out, and it wouldn't be an event horizon.
A black hole doesn't have a proper radius (one that can be measured with a tape measure).  The Schwarzschild radius for instance is computed by running a tape measure around the circumference and dividing by 2π.  Two circles might differ in Schwarzschild radius by 1 km, but a measure of the distance between the circles would yield more than a km, just like if we dropped a rope to the center of Earth it would be longer than the circumference over 2π.  Not much, but a bit.

The gravity gradient at the surface is only  about 1E-9  Less than that on the earth

Again, not sure of the figure, but agree that the gravity gradient (tidal stress) on a large black hole is definitely far less than that of a little one.

It is quite clear that a theoretical space ship could cross this without any stress problems

If it crosses at all, yes.  But inside, 'towards the central singularity' isn't even a spatial dimension, so gravity force isn't even meaningful in that dimension, similar to how I cannot be pulled into the past by a sufficiently large mass that was here yesterday.  That the critical part that must be addressed when considering the conditions of material that is posited to be inside.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

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

Gravitational acceleration is not directly related to escape velocity
The gravitational acceleration of the earth is around 10 meters /second squared its escape velocity is around 11Km/second.  Note if the earth was converted into a black hole its radius would be just under 1cm but its escape velocity from a distance equal to the radius if the earth would not change  similarly if the sun was changed into a black hole it would have a radius of around 3km and the earth's orbit would not change.

Coming to your spaceship analogy
The most efficient propulsion system possible is that created by converting mass directly into energy of acceleration (This is not possible you can only get half of that in theory).  If you calculated the total energy consumption of the space ship needed to achieve that acceleration for long enough to escape the gravitational field to infinity it would have consumed its entire mass before it escaped.

The escape velocity of a gravitating body is
 v = sqrt(2GM/r). M is the mass of body, G is the gravitational constant, r is the radius of the body, and v the escape velocity
There are dozens of references to this on the web

Look at the formulae in black hole properties reference above and you will find the radius of a black hole is this formula rearranged to give a radius where this is the velocity of light.