Atomic size black holes

[Royston]

Is it possible for a particle to collapse under gravity if it's energy is finite. I was thinking of this in relation to the beginning of the universe...in that the size of an object could be very small to create a black hole in proportion to other matter in the early universe and the gravitational forces acting upon this matter.

 

As a star holding finite energy burns out and can no longer support itself under the effects of gravity it creates a black hole (dependant on it's mass), and as the laws of relativity still hold true...eg an outside observer would see someone entering a black hole skew and break up but the person in the black hole would not notice these effects as his composition (for want of a better word) is still relative to the laws inside the black hole...what if these effects happend at the start of the universe before uniform objects formed.

 

What I mean is, would it be possible for a universe to exist under the laws of a black hole...which would essentially make our universe appear as black holes in that universe...or I guess no black holes. If thermal dynamics still holds in black holes then the (how it appears to us) contraction of that universe would be relative to the expansion of our universe.

 

For this to take place then the events would have to of happend around the time of the big bang if not instantaneous to the big bang, I'm thinking the expansion of our universe could maybe slow the contraction of the other universe into not forming a singularity...and so holding information.

 

Feel free to rip this apart, I have the idea in my head but I'm finding it quite hard to iterate my thoughts.

[5614]

I don't follow what you are trying to say... is it that we are all in a black hole?

[Royston]

That's an interesting idea...but not what I'm getting at, as we can observe the effects of a black hole...it's contraction.

 

I guess you think I mean that the observations of our universe from inside a black hole would be a mirrored version of our observations from outside a black hole. Though I'm not sure how that would work. There simply wouldn't be such a thing as a black hole if inside one, as our universe is expanding.

 

Sorry ignore the 'our universe would seem like black holes' in my first post...I'm at work, so thinking aloud as it were. I don't have much time to think and post so apologies, my premise needs ironing out.

[5614]

I think it's just me but now I'm more confused!

 

You told me my guess was wrong and then went on to say what you thought I was thinking, confusing! Then you said to ignore part of your 1st post, which I never really fully understood anyway... !

 

May I just ask for a very simple 1 or 2 line sentence of what exactly you are saying just so I can meaningfully post in this thread? Thanks!

[Royston]

Ok, sorry if it seemed like a babble, but my idea is that the universe is expanding and a parallel universe is contracting. The two have direct effects on the other in regards to gravity...making it a weak force.

 

The universe contracting still holds to the laws of relativity with regards to my explanation in the first post...black holes are an example of this contraction. With the two fighting as one expands and one contracts a singularity is not formed and the expansion is slow enough to create uniform shapes.

 

I realise the first premise can't be true as the forces in an atom a far stronger than gravity for a particle to collapse at the start of the big bang.

[5614]

OK, so I understand what you are talking about now, which is a start!

 

I just don't really know what to say about it now I understand it! I suppose I could ask if there's proof? And what happens when the other universe fully collapses (ie. shrinks out of existence)? Is there a physical divide between the two universes or is this in different dimentions?

 

What did you want out of this thread? Someone to tell you if this is possible or not?

[Royston]

What did you want out of this thread? Someone to tell you if this is possible or not?

 

Yes.

 

I actually hate using the 'parallel universe' term as it almost seems like a cop out. But if it's possible to exist in one and observe the effects of the other then it does appear that there are two universes tightly woven with one contracting the other expanding.

 

The singularity never happens just as all matter doesn't fly out at an infinite rate. How can you have someting of infinite mass...that would mean more energy is created by a black hole than the amount of energy that's passed into it...essentially energy from nothing. Matter does not dissappear or materialize it simply changes state...though I'm sure you're aware of that. I guess this may seem sceptical to most, but logically it works.

[5614]

The singularity never happens just as all matter doesn't fly out at an infinite rate[/b'].

Sure about the bold part, but if matter were "flying" for an infinite amount of time then it would cover an infinite amount of distance.

 

Also like I said in the last post, what is the division between these two universes? A physical wall?!? Or another dimension?

[Royston]

Sure about the bold part' date=' but if matter were "flying" for an infinite amount of time then it would cover an infinite amount of distance.

 

Also like I said in the last post, what is the division between these two universes? A physical wall?!? Or another dimension?[/quote']

 

A physical wall...which you could pass through, not sure how you'd get back if you were within the frame of a blackhole.

 

You would still exist as you were a part of that frame but if you were to try and come out your situation wouldn't reverse, you'd shift to compensate from a contracting frame to an expanding frame.

 

If you (hypothetically had the energy to escape a blackhole) you would spread over space-time and theoretically would still exist (if relativity still held), but you wouldn't be much use to anyone. You would be a unique entity...needless to say not even light can escape, so to ponder over exiting this contracting universe is irrelevant.

[arkain101]

I like this idea and understand it completely. After all things do work on balance in the universe.

What if on the sun, some particles experienced C or close to from the massive energy.

Particles from one speed dimension contacting with particles of a regular dimension causing some weird phenominom like.... sun flare? sun spot?

what would happen if you shook hands with a C speed traveler lol hypethically.

[Royston]

Sorry I'm not sure I follow...I thought solar flares were electromagnetic fields on the Sun that become knotted...energy is stored then literally explodes firing off x rays, gamma rays et.c I know they're still being researched but I can't see how this connects with what I'm trying to get across.

 

I guess I should explain my thought process with this post and you may understand my frustration into making this idea tangible to other people.

 

With regards to an earlier thread...'mental visualizations' where I should of explained how I can build highly complex models in my head (strangely my maths is very shoddy) but I can build entire constructions e.g a cathedral and travel around the construct and know my exact position in the model, basically like an architects CGI demonstration. I took this for granted...I've always been able to do it, and only after reading other peoples take on mental visualizations I realised that not everybody can do this...Bettina's being the closest but this goes a little further.

 

Recently I've been thinking about relativity...alot. I managed to construct a model in my head where the principles of relativity are applied, and I can observe this model (which is what most people can do) but I can also become part of the model, I can only describe it as thinking in three dimensions...but this is where it breaks down, because it's almost impossible to convey this into english (or any other language) and I certainly don't have the maths to describe what I've constructed.

 

The reason I was dicing over the idea of particles collapsing in the very early universe, is because I can vizualise collapse in a 3D construct and this collapse seems (with the model that I've constructed) to have direct relation with the expansion of the model. This is why I was thinking it needs to be inherent at the start of the universe.

 

My early models would be similar to expanding spheres or 3D eliptical shapes with trillions of angles with no space between holding the sphere together (kind of...this is really hard to describe)...remember that I'm compensating for the fact that I'm part of the construct. Aaarggh this is frustrating, maybe I should wait till I start my diploma next year, and I can stipulate my thoughts with a higher degree (excuse the pun) of detail and structure.

 

Albeit I hope you all enjoyed reading my ramble, and maybe it provoked a few thoughts if nothing else

[arkain101]

if the univerise is expanding like some people say.. I kind of theorized somthing else that might be worth thinking about for those experts out there..

 

If I you back to the beginning where they claim all material was contained in one large ball so to speak.

I would assume the mass would be beyond comprehension, also the size would be alot smaller than expected. The rotation of the of the object would be sickening fast, where the g-forces would be very close to the actual gravity holding the object together.

When and if this bang occured it would of origanated from an intensly spinning object probably not even round but more of a oblong disc. When the material explodes and begins to let go the material would for the most part get thrown out at a spiraling horizontal plain shape. Hence the shape of the universe would follow from there.

I know this is a hugely blind assumption. But logically this would be more or less the expected outcome.

As for the accelerating and expanding universe thoery.

The expanding part would make perfect sense if this is how things origanated but for the accelerating part, I really dont know if that is correct.. I mean science is not always right the first time and who are we to say we understand anything about the universe that is concrete.

It could appear to be accelerating because of deformations of the light. It is impossible to tell what anything looks like currently when it is so far away. the light can take so long to get here and what you see is so far into the past.

Also, if this is an accelerating and expanding universe eventually things could in theory reach the speed of light, god forbid, and if so some of the light from the surrounding universe would not be able to keep up to you. Although the theory of special relativity states that light is always the same speed to the observer regardless of there velocity or reference point, which would break the rule of C being the speed limit. If it is constantly accelerating then what is going to make it stop.. if the force can cause the entire universe to accelerate away from itself then that force would surely be able to cause it to reach and exceed the speed of C.

If something appears to be acclerating with by watching it with light it is very possibl that it could actually be deaccelerating, causeing the "theoretical clock" on the light to speed up as things actually slow down. (remember the fast moving bodies seem to have a slow moving clock, so an accelerating object near speed of C would have a de-accelerating clock). A deacclerating universe would possibly have a speeding up of the light.. Which would give the appearence that it is accelerating but in fact the light in the data is only coming more quickly at us.

So it would seem to me that for the most part the universe would look alot like an expanding ring.

is it possible that the bang caused the ejected material to be our matter and the compressed inner core to become anti-matter or whatever it is that is called to cause the expansion of the universe.

Just my quick assumption on the result of the big bang... I dont know if anyone has contemplated that or not.