A Big Bang Question

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by florian

Going back to the original query about the relation between black holes and the big bang . I read somwhere an interesting idea .At both of these singularities , according to relativity ,time slows down the nearer you aproach a singularity .So both in a sense lie outside of time .i.e. a black hole singularity is always in the 'future' and the big bang singularity is always in the 'past' and all possible time lies between them but never actually 'reaches' either . Perhaps this is another way of regarding the universe as being closed ?

Or wide open...

v/r

Q

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by florian

...all possible time lies between them but never actually 'reaches' either . Perhaps this is another way of regarding the universe as being closed ?

Imagine an asymptotic function shown on a graph.
(e.g. http://www.math.lsu.edu/~neal/TI_89/.../rational.html)

If the present is t=0, once time 'reaches' t=inifinity (in the future), it returns toward the present from the past (t= negative-infinity). [At least in my cockeyed, admittedly unverifiable thought experiment.]

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

Imagine an asymptotic function shown on a graph.
(e.g. http://www.math.lsu.edu/~neal/TI_89/.../rational.html)

If the present is t=0, once time 'reaches' t=inifinity (in the future), it returns toward the present from the past (t= negative-infinity). [At least in my cockeyed, admittedly unverifiable thought experiment.]

Interesting points both of you have. What about local time dialations? I refer to pockets of time moving at different paces, relative to the Universe (multiverse) in general?

Since we are debating the beginning of the Universe, and the arguement is that it is billions of years old, but for example the Sol's solar system is not? For arguement's sake, let us consider that religious scriptures are painting a literal view of the history of our solars ystem, including the amount of time it took to make it (days instead of eons). Possible? If "somone" had the means by which to alter time locally?

Within a localized "bubble" of time dialation, time could be slowed down or sped up relative to the rest of the expanse...could it not?

Just a thought, thought, thought, thoughtttttttttt...

v/r

Q

[florian]

Interesting point but what about this. If time were to run at a slower rate within a 'bubble' then space within that bubble would expand at a slower rate than the universe outside , this would surely mean that when the bubble 'rejoined' the rest of the universe everything that had been within the bubble , would be out of scale with the universe around it .

[florian]

On second thoughts I suppose this would depend on whether the expansion of the universe is caused by existing space being stretched or new space being added in between .

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by florian

On second thoughts I suppose this would depend on whether the expansion of the universe is caused by existing space being stretched or new space being added in between .

Excellent points. I think though in order for space to expand, it would have to be moving faster than relative to its surroundings. But if it was relatively stationary, just contained within its own "cocoon"...

something to consider.

v/r

Q

[Tao_Equus]

DrewJMore,

Really loved your posts. I am assuming you concur with WHKeith on the mass of supermassive black holes so forgive me if these are stupid questions. It seems to me that gravity is missing or is gravity in your model the fabric of the loop or hyper-sphere and it thus exerts its force throughout (either side) the singularity. Do the same physics apply to both/all sides? Also do you think there is a type of Bose-Einstein Condensate effect that takes place under the huge pressures that could account for mass/gravity stability (to stop it dropping out of 'our' universe altogether) and some of the associated phenomena such as plasma jets? An what do you think about them being possible points of contact between Branes in Brane Theory ?

Regards

Tao

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

DrewJMore,

Really loved your posts.

Well that's a first.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am assuming you concur with WHKeith on the mass of supermassive black holes so forgive me if these are stupid questions. It seems to me that gravity is missing or is gravity in your model the fabric of the loop or hyper-sphere and it thus exerts its force throughout (either side) the singularity.

I can't claim to have really given my conjecture(s) any rigorous consideration, but since you have, here goes:
To me it seems that matter has the property of impeding the flow of time, thus forming a "low" spot in spacetime. Given two spatially separate bits of matter, and their associated 'depression' in the spacetime fabric, each will tend towards each other as would two bowling-balls on a spring mattress.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Do the same physics apply to both/all sides?

It certainly would simplify things if this was the case, but as I've been known to say, "I will be glad to perform the experiment and report my findings," by jumping into a black hole.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Also do you think there is a type of Bose-Einstein Condensate effect that takes place under the huge pressures that could account for mass/gravity stability (to stop it dropping out of 'our' universe altogether) and some of the associated phenomena such as plasma jets?

You flatter me: considering my words in light of the names of so many accomplished thinkers. In reply, I would speculate that there must be a practical limit beyond which matter will no longer 'allow' its density to increase. How that may be enforced, and at what magnitude, is both a significant mathematical exercise and an expensive experiment.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

An what do you think about them being possible points of contact between Branes in Brane Theory ?

My M-theory understanding is quite limited, but it may be that the supreme flexibility of its equations could be employed to describe the details of reality around black holes. May I ask you to further explain the interactions you mention?

-djm

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

In reply, I would speculate that there must be a practical limit beyond which matter will no longer 'allow' its density to increase. How that may be enforced, and at what magnitude, is both a significant mathematical exercise and an expensive experiment.

It seems to me that there are 2 important questions here that I have either failed to grasp the explanations for (probable), or have not been addressed in what I have read so far. In SM Black holes we can infer mass from their gravitational effect on stars near the galactic cores that harbour these objects. SMBH's that are not in a feeding phase emit almost no energy because, it's said, that the gravity well is simply too great to allow any to escape. I am no mathematician, hell I never even sat any exam in high school, but it seems to the pea between my ears that there is no loss of mass/gravity from the dormant objects is suggesting that there is no gateway within to another dimension. This is why I loved WHKeiths and your presentation that the 'other side' is a complete universe and that ours too is the hyper-inards of one in a yet bigger universe. This would explain the gravity/mass stability we see. And in a feeding SMBH all the turmoil we see takes place at the event horizon and has no effect on the super dense inner core hence the inner-verse remains stable and unaffected.
The other question is the pressure deep within such objects, unless I am gravely mistaken, does not create heat but acts to supercool. (heat being a product of friction/movement which is denied at such extreme pressures. I believe this is called the Hawking temperature). It seems to me that such an effect would create a Boes-Einstien Condensate which has an uncanny similarity to the Zero Point Quantum Matrix that some theorists suggest to be the canvas on which our universe is painted. Do you see what I'm getting at? Both ideas seem to be in harmony. Further I would conjecture that such ideas intuitively to me suggest that the same laws are present in all universes but raised to a power in accord to the total mass.

Q: Is such a single black hole/universe a hypersphere? What I see is a Mandelbrot set type infinity.

My M-theory understanding is quite limited, but it may be that the supreme flexibility of its equations could be employed to describe the details of reality around black holes. May I ask you to further explain the interactions you mention?

-djm[/quote]
Here I am not sure how to fit it into the above picture. Indeed I think if Brane theory were true we would see a loss of mass/gravity from black holes. An analogy of brane theory as I understand it goes thus:
A tent covered in morning dew. The dew, matter, exists on the outer fly sheet but as it forms a pool on the incorrectly erected tent, it causes a gravity well that makes the fly sheet, brane, contact the inner skin, 2nd brane. At this point of contact the water, matter, can move from one brane to another.

Hope I have made sense :P

regards

Tao

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

...<snip>
Tao

I've read your latest post, and will have to wait a bit to compose my own reply. Very thought provoking.

-djm

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

I've read your latest post, and will have to wait a bit to compose my own reply. Very thought provoking.

-djm

ok

[wil]

Great stuff....isn't there one or more SMBH at the center of every galaxy? I mean since they've been looking haven't they found one??

I'm getting some sort of diverticulitis picture in my head...

But confused as to how the multiple black holes connect to the same universe even in the tent/fly story...

[Tao_Equus]

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry for the double post but I tried to edit and it would not work.

Originally Posted by wil

Great stuff....isn't there one or more SMBH at the center of every galaxy? I mean since they've been looking haven't they found one??

Yes there appears to be one at the centre of most galaxies. The exceptions seem to be the so called open or diffuse galaxies. I think the emerging theory is that they too once upon a time had an SMBH at their core but that it was consumed by a larger one during a galactic collision. There seems to be a divine ratio between the mass of a galaxy and its core SMBH. They all seem to be about 0.5% the mass of the galaxy. So it is possible during a galactic collision for 2 SMBH's to merge but the mass of stars continue onward due to the huge momentum. Having 0.5% of the mass stolen makes little difference really.
The SMBH in our galaxy is not feeding, or it wasn't! But recent images taken on the Keck telescope on Hawaii do seem to have recorded plasma jets around the event horizon.

But confused as to how the multiple black holes connect to the same universe even in the tent/fly story...

I think the 2 theories to be incompatible. The second one, based on ideas surrounding branes may allow all black holes in our universe to 'touch' an adjacent brane or perhaps many branes dependent how multiversal space is folded. In the tent analogy it is like the fly sheet touches at the inner in multiple places. But as I state there should be an observable loss of mass on our side, which there is not. Additionally you would expect to see some flow this way too which we have not observed though some postulate that this was what the Big Bang was.

In the other idea each black hole in our universe is a universe in its own right. And our universe is a single black hole in a much bigger universe that may contain as many black holes as our own. That universe in turn would be an even bigger black hole in an even bigger universe ad-infinitum. This is why I think a Mandelbrot set a good visual diagram.


Tao

[_Z_]

here's a theory that the universe is cyclic and repeats itself endlessly

Edge 210