It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So far primordial black holes only exist in theory, and even if scientists do eventually detect one, Carr and Coley admit there would be no way of determining if it was born in our universe or came from a previous epoch
Abstract..
We discuss whether black holes could persist in a universe which recollapses and then bounces into a new expansion phase. Whether the bounce is of classical or quan- tum gravitational origin, such cosmological models are of great current interest. In particular, we investigate the mass range in which black holes might survive a bounce and ways of differentiating observationally between black holes formed just after and just before the last bounce. We also discuss the consequences of the universe going through a sequence of dimensional changes as it passes through a bounce.
It's interesting to speculate about things like this but if there's no way to prove what universe it came from, isn't it about as useful as speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Originally posted by majestictwo
So far primordial black holes only exist in theory, and even if scientists do eventually detect one, Carr and Coley admit there would be no way of determining if it was born in our universe or came from a previous epoch
Yes but that example illustrates my point of how I think science should work:
Originally posted by majestictwo
In my mind man has to be bold and have a go. There was a time when the atom was thought to be the smallest thing there is, now we have the LHC and we know different.
Throughout the nineteenth century this view of the atom as a featureless, structureless, indivisible particle persisted. When the view broke down, it was through a line of experimentation