Earth May Already Be Inside A Black Hole, Scientist Says

I agree with this to an extent.

A physicist claimed that Earth and the entire universe could already be inside a black hole. According to the physicist, this theory is related to the idea that the Big Bang was actually a black hole.

www.ibtimes.com...

There's other articles like this:

Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe

www.insidescience.org...

Are We Living in a Black Hole?

www.nationalgeographic.com...

There Might Be a Universe Inside Every Black Hole

curiosity.com...

The Black Hole at the Birth of the Universe

Our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe, propose a trio of Perimeter Institute researchers in the cover story of the latest Scientific American.

insidetheperimeter.ca...

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

We know space is expanding and this should continue forever because there's nothing to cause space to collapse into a big crunch. So runaway expansion wins the day.

The only place where gravity dominates expansion is in a black hole. Gravity in a black hole crushes everything close to a singularity but because of QM a singularity never occurs, things become unstable and what we call a big bang occurs. So it will look like this:



I know it's a balloon of an Octopus but it will make sense in a minute.

The round part of the balloon represents expanding space or the bulk. The tentacles are all around the balloon(bulk) and they're places where black holes form and gravity dominates expansion. These tentacles represents big bang universes. These universes keep coming into existence as space expands.

a reply to: neoholographic

That was an interesting read, thank you, never thought of life universe ike that before, still doesn't answer my question what is the 'parent' universe expanding into 😢
I'd love to know that ❤️😀

originally posted by: DaisyRainbow
a reply to: neoholographic

That was an interesting read, thank you, never thought of life universe ike that before, still doesn't answer my question what is the 'parent' universe expanding into 😢
I'd love to know that ❤️😀

Imagine a balloon being inflated in a vacuum .
You are on the inside of that balloon.
The space the balloon had already existed prior to the start of inflation.
It just expanded .
Same with the space/time fabric.
It was already there.

Theoretically speaking , if you started a journey across the universe traveling in a one directional straight line , you would arrive back at the starting point.

I know , an over simplified example.
Best I could come up with , though.

a reply to: Gothmog

Thanks, I get that image in my head but what is the vacuum contained in?
*thinks high school science 😂

1) Anything crossing the event horizon is completely destroyed - Hawking
2) Anything crossing the event horizon is ripped all the way down until only the "information" of that mass remains - Susskind

So , under those conditions , would there be mass enough for a universe to be created ?
The black hole would only contain the mass of the original collapsed star compressed down to "whatever".
Or , in the case of supermassive black holes , a combination of multiple stars collapsing.
Still not enough combined mass to create a "universe".

Of course , what do I know ?
Interesting thought nonetheless.

originally posted by: DaisyRainbow
a reply to: Gothmog

Thanks, I get that image in my head but what is the vacuum contained in?
*thinks high school science 😂

This would be from a popular theory named the "soccer ball theory"
That would be up to a real physicist to answer.
Everything and nothing at all ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
1) Anything crossing the event horizon is completely destroyed - Hawking

That is interestingly not correct. If the Schwarzschild radius (the event horizon) is large enough from a very massive blackhole, the gravity gradient is low enough that you might be able to cross the border without getting spaghettified.

And a blackhole with really small mass might not even "have" a Schwarzschild radius outside its core. That at least is what is behind a "naked" black hole, and no, I do not understand this, too.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: Gothmog
1) Anything crossing the event horizon is completely destroyed - Hawking

That is interestingly not correct. If the Schwarzschild radius (the event horizon) is large enough from a very massive blackhole, the gravity gradient is low enough that you might be able to cross the border without getting spaghettified.

And a blackhole with really small mass might not even "have" a Schwarzschild radius outside its core. That at least is what is behind a "naked" black hole, and no, I do not understand this, too.

Ok , so that was for the instant that an object crosses the event horizon .
Nothing of what happens afterwards
Again , I refer you to Hawking's Radiation and Susskind's work.

a reply to: Gothmog

And I repeat myself, an object crossing the event horizon does not automatically be destroyed. If the gravitational gradient is low enough (supermassive black hole) the object is not destroyed as the difference in gravitational forces "from head to toe" is too small to pull it apart.

You just won't get it back. Its now inside the black hole.

And Hawkings radiation does have absolutely nothing to do with destruction of macroscopic objects at the event horizon. Hawking and Susskind (more him than Stephen) did find a way to keep information from being destroyed/removed by adding it to a "shell" around the event horizon.

What we need is a quantum description of black holes imho before even attempting to talk about what is happening at/beyond the event horizon.

String theorists for example argue that there are no black holes at all, but fuzzballs (made of strings) with a radius matching the event horizon.

OK, so say the universe did come about from a black hole in another universe. Where did that universe come from? Yet another universe? Then where did that one come from? Add infinium... There has to be a "parent", or great, great, great.... grandparent where it all stated. How did that universe form?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Gothmog

And I repeat myself, an object crossing the event horizon does not automatically be destroyed. If the gravitational gradient is low enough (supermassive black hole) the object is not destroyed as the difference in gravitational forces "from head to toe" is too small to pull it apart.

You just won't get it back. Its now inside the black hole.

And Hawkings radiation does have absolutely nothing to do with destruction of macroscopic objects at the event horizon. Hawking and Susskind (more him than Stephen) did find a way to keep information from being destroyed/removed by adding it to a "shell" around the event horizon.

You are using only part of the picture to debate.
I grow tired of explaining what you are saying does happen at the event horizon.
Do you really think anything that is drawn in that far , remains there?
As I am tired , I end this here.

a reply to: moebius

The event horizon is nothing. Advanced physicists are sure that there is a 2d-"shell" of information floating at that point in space, but quantum mechanics is irrelevant at that point. I think you mean the singularity at the center of the black hole.

Good luck with QM at that point.

a reply to: Gothmog

You are still incorrect with saying that there is destruction at that point, regardless the mass of the black hole. But okay, go to bed and sleep well.

I am not discussing relativity theory at that point, as it usually in this type of layman forum starts to derail into "--I-- see the spaceship frozen in time!" "Yeah, but not me, the RT says......". THAT is pointless.

A flat black hole.

originally posted by: Gothmog
1) Anything crossing the event horizon is completely destroyed - Hawking
2) Anything crossing the event horizon is ripped all the way down until only the "information" of that mass remains - Susskind

So , under those conditions , would there be mass enough for a universe to be created ?
The black hole would only contain the mass of the original collapsed star compressed down to "whatever".
Or , in the case of supermassive black holes , a combination of multiple stars collapsing.
Still not enough combined mass to create a "universe".

Of course , what do I know ?
Interesting thought nonetheless.

Think about it like this.

At the centre of a gravity well be that a planet or a star or even a black hole (but this is incredibly important to think about if there is an instant of potential over unity to occur - you'll catch my drift in a moment) there is a tiny point which may be uncertain as to it's exact location - meaning there may even be several such point's in the quantum sense in a very small volume of space, this point('s) is surrounded by the gravity mass so is actually under extreme stress pulling it in all direction's, keep this in mind.

Now if we slip over to a kind of hybrid idea based on super string and membrane theory we have this.

Everything in the universe (our time space continuum which is pretty much the universe to us but in fact is only a really insignificant part of the perhaps infinite whole but I will refer to it TSC to simplify it) is made up of the same substance in String theory, this means' that empty space is made up of the same thing as matter there really is no difference.

Not to throw in something from Membrane universe theory, Gravity may be of non local origin to our universe (TSC) and our reality (It's basic law's and forces not it's configuration) may be created by a collision or interaction in super space (a hypothetical realm that could be regarded as a greater aspect of the true infinite universe) between two or more brane verses (there may be an infinite number of membrane universe existing in superspace), it was noted that GRAVITY is millions of time's weaker than the other FORCES in our universe such as electromagnetic attraction for example and so it was hypothesized that perhaps therefore that Gravity itself was coming not from our own Brane verse but from another one in peripheral contact with our universe - this is important as it may also mean that the force of Gravity itself may be variable over time - but far greater time frames that we could even comprehend and of the scope of another debate on a larger over arching theory of everything.

Now remember that point that is so small it may be smaller than a sub atomic particle or even smaller than that - surrounded by all that mass, remember that gravity may be non local and therefore it is not a product of mass but is at a one to one ration across the entire super-string meaning that were mass represents the super-string bunched up into a tangle of a sort, the denser the mass the more of it there is in it in relative volume compared to empty space BUT regardless of it being bunched up all of that super-string is still at a one to one ratio with the gravity emanating through our entire brane-verse (String verse) so in a small volume the gravity is therefore increased in relation to how dense the mass is BUT it remains' nevertheless everywhere in the universe which we perceive.

As the star collapsed into itself it pull's the super-string so hard on such a tiny point that perhaps it actually invert's it - and through this inversion - white hole - time and energy spew into that tiny space - new string material that then form's into it's own TSC but one with one very important caveat, it is surrounded by that gravity well the black hole that for the briefest instant focused enough gravity onto that tiny void at the heart of the former star.

Now what is interesting with this is what exactly is the interaction with time?, well in theory this new TSC inside each TRUE black hole (not sure if a brown hole as well as being very itchy - sorry could not resist the pun - has enough mass density to focus enough energy to force this inversion but probably not so in theory only true black hole's need apply so to speak) will have time at a relative rate of passage compared to the parent TSC within which the black hole formed that will move at a much faster speed.

But this equalized out eventually.

By the time the parent black hole as undergone quantum evaporation completely the internal TSC (or remember that uncertainty about that tiny point's exact location perhaps multiple TSC on occasion) will also have undergone entropic expansion toward the surrounding INTERNAL event horizon surrounding the tiny space in which it formed - proof of this gravity pulling outward would be seen in red shift of more distant objects actually accelerating away from one another rather than slowing down since the gravity of the surrounding black hole is exerting an attraction - dark energy need not apply but the search for dark energy and dark matter - if it even exists - are still important as the will inevitably provide new data even if they fail to find what they were initially seeking.

a reply to: neoholographic
I think it was about 6 years ago in 2013 that Nikodem Poplawski wrote a paper about that idea and those links refer to him, but it's a speculative idea for which he presented no evidence, and ultimately I'm not sure he could ever prove it which I think would involve knowing what our universe is interacting with outside the observable universe, something we can't know unless we invent faster than light travel.

Physicist Sean Carroll doesn't think much of the idea:

The Universe is Not a Black Hole

People sometimes ask, “Is the universe a black hole?” Or worse, they claim: “The universe is a black hole!” No, it’s not, and it’s worth getting this one straight...

if anything, our universe bears a passing resemblance to a white hole. Our universe (according to conventional general relativity) has a singularity in the past, out of which everything emerged, not a singularity in the future into which everything is crashing. We call that singularity the Big Bang, but it’s very similar to what we would expect from a white hole, which is just a time-reversed version of a black hole...

Our universe is not going to collapse to a future singularity, even though the mass is enough to allow that to happen, simply because it’s expanding; the singularity you’re anticipating already happened.

I can't get too excited about ideas which have no supporting evidence and which can't be tested. If the history of science shows us anything it's that we have come up with a bunch if ideas which, when tested against nature or reality, turned out to be wrong, and I'd say the ratio of wrong ideas to right ideas is so high that non-testable ideas shouldn't have much serious impact on our thinking.

Maybe if someday faster-than-light travel is invented, there might be a way to test Poplawski's idea, but that may turn out to be impossible even with advanced technology, and it may be just a fact of existence that we will never know what is beyond the observable universe.

originally posted by: Gothmog
1) Anything crossing the event horizon is completely destroyed - Hawking

I noticed you didn't use quotation marks for that statement. Could yo please provide the exact quote and source (did Hawking say it in a specific book or paper?) and then maybe we can put what you're trying to say in context. Your statement from Susskind refers to "information" and if Hawking is also referring to information, that would make the context of what you're saying quite different than what you said.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As for the evidence is not more down to how you interpret the data and then use it to support your theory, the available evidence could equally be used to support several theory's and it is possible that all such theory's including the prevailing current favorite are all wrong.

a reply to: neoholographic

Anything is possible. I doubt we'll ever really understand the nature of reality.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I noticed you didn't use quotation marks for that statement. Could yo please provide the exact quote and source (did Hawking say it in a specific book or paper?) and then maybe we can put what you're trying to say in context. Your statement from Susskind refers to "information" and if Hawking is also referring to information, that would make the context of what you're saying quite different than what you said.

Hawking stated that in a black hole , matter was completely destroyed thus Hawking Radiation .
Susskind came back with that matter was reduced to information thus obeying the Laws of Conservation.
At first , it was noted that Susskind had proven Hawking incorrect .
Yet with further information , that debate is yet to be settled.
As far as the quotes ?
I cant use quotes unless it was the exact statement .
If you have to ask those types of questions , perhaps some basic learning is in order for you .
The information is out there
Waiting