Does the Universe exist as the surface of a black hole?

[DanTrentfield]

So I've been thinking a bit lately. After the very helpful posts by people like Delta212 and Strange to name a few on my Universe is infinite only in the theoretical sense? thread, I'd like to ask a new question. Does the universe exist on the surface of a black hole? Crazy? Yes. Stupid and completely false? Probably. But let's pursue this matter anyways using some rickety but still somewhat logical points I've come up with.

 

Hypothesis: The universe exists as the surface of a black hole

 

1. Question: The speed of light is the absolute limit of speed for particles with mass, Why is this?

Answer: This could be the rate of the expansion of the universe, as if you surpassed this speed if this were the case you would completely exit the universe because you would be moving faster than the universe is expanding, therefore space cannot catch up with you, Because whilst the universe is infinite, infinity is only a quantity greater than any assignable quantity or countable number, (Cred. Google Definitions) which due to the limitations of the human brain make infinity a rational number, albeit a concept not able to be thought of as anything other than infinity because of it's size, Also, the presence of different infinities of larger scales lends evidence to infinity being a rational and limited number that is too large for us to ever visualize but still a limited and rational number. This would make sense with our current understanding of the nature of the expansion of the universe, as it is speeding up, not slowing down, as a ripple in a pond moving a constant speed would be ever increasing in rate of expansion. This however though it does not lend evidence to the question or answer it entirely and makes the assumption that space can be exited, which is a wild guess at best and pseudoscientific at worst, However, that the universe is speeding up in terms of expansion is in agreement with what is currently accepted for how the universe is expanding, making that the universe is expanding at a set rate of likely the speed of light, possible but hypothetical, and the fact that the universe is infinite but infinity is a limited number beyond our conceptualization does lend some tiny degree of possibility against huge odds of improbability of that possibility to the ability to exit space and the universe as a whole, and supports the consensus that while the universe is infinite, infinity is limited, therefore the universe is limited to infinity.

 

2. Question: If the universe were to exist on the surface of a black hole, why then would a state of maximum entropy not exist as all information and matter is distributed evenly on the surface of a black hole?

Answer: Because maximum entropy takes time to achieve, because in the same way that a water based mixture with dirt, oil, and sand takes time to achieve the state of maximum entropy, so does the matter and information on the surface of a black hole take time to achieve a state of maximum entropy, and due to the extreme nature of time dilation around/in black holes it is hypothetically possible for time to be extremely sped up in comparison to the time of the universe in which the black hole exists.

 

3. Question: Assuming that the universe does indeed exist as the surface of a black hole why then is new matter not created whenever this hypothetical black hole consumes something?

Answer: There are a few possible explanations for this:

A: The hypothetical black hole has not/is not consuming any matter at this specific moment in time

B: The hypothetical black hole has consumed it's entire universe

C: Extreme time dilation makes our universe's increments of time so fast in comparison to the hypothetical universe that this hypothetical black hole exists in that matter from this hypothetical universe that this hypothetical black hole exists in does not even reach anywhere near the event horizon before our universe reaches a state of maximum entropy and dies out in heat death.

 

4. Question: Is there any evidence to support the possibility of the universe existing on the surface of a black hole?

Answer: There is no evidence which can be proven solidly to support this conclusion at this point and time, And there will not be unless we gain serious insight into the nature of black holes, However, although there is not solid evidence to support this consensus, and only rudimentary reasoning to support this idea, it should still at least be considered as a possibility for universes to exist because it agrees for the most part, with Mr. Stephen Hawking's research into the nature of the early universe, and the nature of black holes, and it would explain what happens once you enter the event horizon of a black hole at least rudimentarily.

 

In conclusion I think this is simply an interesting thought, and it does make some degree of sense with what we have discovered so far about the nature of black holes and the universe. Even so I cannot provide experimental evidence nor mathematics, so this begins to devolve into a mere speculation that I attest as a hypothesis. And I'd like to thank you for reading this rickety ramshackle hunk of junk that I just threw in the much beloved "Trash can".

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

Hypothesis: The universe exists as the surface of a black hole

 

 

Well, on your side is the odd coincidence that the radius of the observable universe is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the estimated mass of the observable universe.

 

Also, there is the "holographic theory" ...

 

However, the universe is quite unlike a black hole in some important ways. For example, the universe's singularity is in the past, while the singularity in a black hole is in the future.

 

 

1. Question: The speed of light is the absolute limit of speed for particles with mass, Why is this?

Answer: This could be the rate of the expansion of the universe, as if you surpassed this speed if this were the case you would completely exit the universe because you would be moving faster than the universe is expanding, therefore space cannot catch up with you

 

The thing is, the universe does not expand at the speed of light. In fact, expansion is not a speed at all, it is a scaling effect. That means that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are (see also: Hubble's law). That means that there are (and always have been) places in the universe that are moving apart at greater than the speed of light.

[DanTrentfield]

 

 

 

 

 

Well, on your side is the odd coincidence that the radius of the observable universe is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the estimated mass of the observable universe.

 

Also, there is the "holographic theory" ...

 

However, the universe is quite unlike a black hole in some important ways. For example, the universe's singularity is in the past, while the singularity in a black hole is in the future.

 

 

The thing is, the universe does not expand at the speed of light. In fact, expansion is not a speed at all, it is a scaling effect. That means that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are (see also: Hubble's law). That means that there are (and always have been) places in the universe that are moving apart at greater than the speed of light.

This raises several questions:

1. Holographic theory is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that a description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower dimensional "Light like boundary" like a gravitational horizon. (moving on in the article) string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way. (Quote of Wikipedia) So given this statement would then the forces of gravity be possibly attributable to a universe that contains our hypothetical universal black hole that has reached the state of maximum entropy and zero expansion as described in a law of limits like fashion by Hubble's law? (See question #4 for a more in depth explanation on why I think this.)

2. Being that the universe obeys the forces of entropy and it's singularity is in the past, why then would it's singularity also not be in the future? Entropy means the equal distribution and mixing of all components in a mixture, not necessarily the max spread unless I am mistaken. Which means that were it not for the forces of Dark energy if that truly is what is causing such rapid expansion, the universe would recondense albeit in a state of maximum entropy, to a singularity.

3. So if universal expansion is scaling effect, and it is not a speed at all, does that not necessarily mean that there could hypothetically be a speed great enough to overcome expansion of the universe, or because data mentioned in Hubble's law states that we are close to the critical state of zero expansion, that at that point or close enough to that point, any speed would be enough to overcome this scaling effect given time?

4. If we reach the point of zero expansion then the big crunch occurs as stated. But let's say that we do not reach that point fast enough, and lets say an unlikely thing happens which ties into my OP: Let's say The universe itself is somehow existing on the surface of a supermassive black hole which exists in another universe, of which we are a pocket universe of, and let's say this universe does not have close to/the critical density for the big crunch/and or continues to expand forever with all matter being consumed by black holes in this universe/ or even possibly has the critical density and big crunches, and in doing so creates a huge number of pocket universes in a very short amount of time, and the black hole which our universe exists on the surface of, dissipates/merges with another black hole, Given enough matter inside a black hole, such as one in which our universe would be contained if the OP is somehow true, would a rebound effect where a big bang like expansion of our pocket universe into the universe in which the black hole exists in occur? And if the big crunch scenario happens within the universe in which our universe exists in on the surface of a black hole happens and many pocket universes are formed with their own matter would our universe merge with another universe in a weird and very interesting fashion? This would tend to agree with the theory(?) of parallel universes as it could be hypothetically possible for pocket universes to have their own laws of physics (Man this is getting sketchy with "Possible" Yell out if I'm wrong and I shall amend any errors) with one important thing to note: In order for time to exist as it is a differential between two(?) (Sketchy....) objects one thing must be true: A universe that has reached the state of zero expansion and maximum entropy must exist in order for something like our universe to exist as we cannot have 0 without 1, because time works somewhat like this with differentials between maximum and minimum and in order for something with such a time flow as our universe to have that must mean that there is a universe that is in the state of maximum entropy and complete stagnation in terms of expansion (Zero expansion) because it has to create the possibility for that to exist as a concept in the first place. (If I am mistaken in any way shout it out please, I do not intend to promote errors, rather I hope to propose an interesting idea with my logic backing it, Even so my logic can be faulty.) And in the same way a universe that is younger than ours should also exist if we are not the top of the scale. But at the very least if this idea and way of thinking has any credibility whatsoever we must have an opposite. Thank you Strange once again for helping me to refine and remover errors from my ideas and please be sure point out any errors in that idea barely attestable as a feeble hypothesis of an idea that is far bigger than I expected. That last part goes for anyone who knows for sure if I'm wrong too.

 

Links/Citation:

 

Wikipedia on the Holographic Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

Wikipedia on the Principle of Maximum Entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy

 

Hubble's Law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html

 

Hubble's Law: H=71km/s/Mpc

the fact that we see other galaxies moving away from us does not imply that we are the center of the universe! All galaxies will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe unless the other galaxies are part of the same gravitationally bound group or cluster of galaxies. A rising loaf of raisin bread is a good visual model: each raisin will see all other raisins moving away from it as the loaf expands.

 

The fact that the universe is expanding then raises the question "Will it always expand?" Since the action of gravity works against the expansion, then if the density were large enough, the expansion would stop and the universe would collapse in a "big crunch". This is called a closed universe. If the density were small enough, the expansion would continue forever (an open universe). At a certain precise critical density, the universe would asymtotically approach zero expansion rate, but never collapse. Remarkably, all evidence indicates that the universe is very close to that critical density. Discussions about the expansion of the universe often refer to a density parameter Ω which is the density divided by the critical density, such that Ω = 1 represents the critical density condition.

Also to add this. Given all of the above statements are true and that the universe is indeed a pocket universe existing on the surface of a black hole. I would like to propose a rickety but relatively well thought out equation to describe the nature of the number of possibilities possible in a pocket universe such as our own assuming that all of what I have stated is true (Even though it is probably not this is a given A, A=B situation.) the number of distinct possibilities in a pocket universe (Unless I'm horribly mistaken which is probably true) is N_p=L_u X ^Mu/_Mq⁶

With N_p being the Number of Distinct possibilities

L_u being the lifetime of the universe in Planck seconds (Unless there is now something smaller)

Mu being the Mass of the Universe

And Mq being the Mass of a Quark (Or the smallest known particle)

and Mu divided by Mq being to the sixth to represent the number of unique directions said quark can travel in a single Planck second at any given speed (Up, Down, Left, Right, Forwards, and Backwards) without creating a hybrid of any directions and a case like this being inbetween direction 1 and direction 6 and so described by the 6 as it accounts for all six possibilities to be true at once (Schrodinger's cat in the box style, The quark has neither moved left nor right nor up nor down nor forwards nor backwards UNTIL it has moved and therefore all six must be accounted for)

 

If this does not satisfy the scale of the number of distinct possibilities (Even though this would already be a huge scale of infinity) Let me know and I shall amend this. And if it is not amendable disregard this post please and thank you.

Edited January 10, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[DanTrentfield]

Also, I forgot to address something brought up by Strange, To quote the great man:

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the universe is quite unlike a black hole in some important ways. For example, the universe's singularity is in the past, while the singularity in a black hole is in the future.

 

That is a very good point. However I must call into question at least in interest of studying this phenomenon where you got your information. And I must ask if that information was tested via experiment. And I would like to see if I could possibly bridge this gap in the general consensus of this page. For an uncommon moment of personal thought on personally proposed matter I'd like to say that I personally think some parts of this make some degree of sense, so I'll most likely never scrap the ideas unless I have clear evidence that each one of them is wrong, because many of them if they were true and experimentally provable would bridge a lot of gaps (At least in my current knowledge..... I really do get lost in my own museum as Dr. Jones says because I don't even know how much we know about the universe ) in our knowledge of the universe.

Edited January 11, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Dissily Mordentroge]

... I really do get lost in my own museum as Dr. Jones says because I don't even know how much we know about the universe ) in our knowledge of the universe.

If the universe is infinite we know nothing.

[DanTrentfield]

If the universe is infinite we know nothing.

Though ∞ is incomprehensibly vast to the human mind, Mechanically 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity. Why? To quote google definitions: "a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)" but though it is unassignable in terms of quantity, it is still limited in the fact that infinity is infinity, it is a number too large to comprehend but still limited to itself. In this point lies that 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity, in the same way that the earth is something when in comparison to the universe and using your model it is nothing. Therefore negation due to insignificance in comparison to an infinite thing does not necessarily hold up, and it is a pessimistic thing. And if you wish to say that we know nothing then you mean to say that we have not tried. And that is an error. It is an error to assume that we know everything, but also an error to assume that we know nothing, because then you forget your past mistakes which are the most valuable kind of lessons. Never say that though 0.1X10^-299 is insignificant in comparison to 1, and is practically nothing, that it is nothing, because the universe operates on both scales of macro and micro, and to discount something as too small or too large is foolish, you simply must take things from a neutral perspective when it comes to true comparison, and let that 1 out of ∞ be a 1 out of ∞. However I would have to agree with you that we know very little in comparison to how much there is to study. But we still know some things.

Edited January 11, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Though ∞ is incomprehensibly vast to the human mind, Mechanically 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity. Why? To quote google definitions: "a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)" but though it is unassignable in terms of quantity, it is still limited in the fact that infinity is infinity, it is a number too large to comprehend but still limited to itself. In this point lies that 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity, in the same way that the earth is something when in comparison to the universe and using your model it is nothing. Therefore negation due to insignificance in comparison to an infinite thing does not necessarily hold up, and it is a pessimistic thing. And if you wish to say that we know nothing then you mean to say that we have not tried. And that is an error. It is an error to assume that we know everything, but also an error to assume that we know nothing, because then you forget your past mistakes which are the most valuable kind of lessons. Never say that though 0.1X10^-299 is insignificant in comparison to 1, and is practically nothing, that it is nothing, because the universe operates on both scales of macro and micro, and to discount something as too small or too large is foolish, you simply must take things from a neutral perspective when it comes to true comparison, and let that 1 out of ∞ be a 1 out of ∞. However I would have to agree with you that we know very little in comparison to how much there is to study. But we still know some things.

A case can be made that number cannot be applied to the infinite. We may have a symbol that signifies the concept and theoretical mathematicians may believe themselves able to manipulate infinite numbers. I suggest any such claim is a delusion. ( itself of infinite proportions?)

[DanTrentfield]

A case can be made that number cannot be applied to the infinite. We may have a symbol that signifies the concept and theoretical mathematicians may believe themselves able to manipulate infinite numbers. I suggest any such claim is a delusion. ( itself of infinite proportions?)

Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Infinity is a rational number and well defined. And we know some things about the universe.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Infinity is a rational number and well defined. And we know some things about the universe.

Indeed we disagree. Infinity from my perspective can never be a number and cannot be defined other than negatively - that is for instance - a distance, quantity etc without end.

And yes, we do know some things about the Universe yet comparing what we know with any infinitude we necessariy know nothing.

For me that's as close to a definition of the infinite as we can get.

Off topic but I often wonder why we have any need to even think about such things.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Dissily Mordentroge

[DanTrentfield]

Indeed we disagree. Infinity from my perspective can never be a number and cannot be defined other than negatively - that is for instance - a distance, quantity etc without end.

And yes, we do know some things about the Universe yet comparing what we know with any infinitude we necessariy know nothing.

For me that's as close to a definition of the infinite as we can get.

Off topic but I often wonder why we have any need to even think about such things.

Because almost every great discovery in science (The telephone for example) has no practical purpose at first, and is frowned upon as a "plaything for the rich" until it is revolutionized and consumed by the hungry beast of technology and progress, and transformed into a brilliant machine.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Because almost every great discovery in science (The telephone for example) has no practical purpose at first, and is frowned upon as a "plaything for the rich" until it is revolutionized and consumed by the hungry beast of technology and progress, and transformed into a brilliant machine.

Which has me wondering if I'll live long enough to see the Bell Telephone able to communicate over infinite distance at infinite speeds.

The Quantaphone?

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Dissily Mordentroge

[DanTrentfield]

 

Which has me wondering if I'll live long enough to see the Bell Telephone able to communicate over infinite distance at infinite speeds.

The Quantaphone?

 

That would be most interesting. Depends on how old you are. If you happen to be that 2 day old child super-prodigy who knows how to type and thinks about this then maybe, just maybe.