Parallel world formation

[r617flynn]

i have a clever idea as to how parallel worlds may be springing up "as you read this sentence.", as Michio Kaku & others say could be possible

 

Hawking says a black hole is an infinitely small infinitely dense point in space. The big bang supposedly sprang from an infinitely small and infinitely dense point in space.

 

OK here it is. A star collapses, forms a black hole. Lets say instead of the matter being sucked in and stored in the center of the black hole, it actually has formed a parallel universe, and the matter being sucked in by the black hole is pumped into the new universe, expanding it.

 

A good and simple way to picture this is with 2 balloons, 1 filled and about to explode(a universe), the mouthpiece is connected to the mouthpiece of another empty balloon, the mouthpieces are both opened allowing the air to flow freely(black hole forms), and the full balloon expels its air through the pathway of the 2 mouthpieces and fills the second balloon(new universe).

 

Feedback please

-Ryan Flynn

[Klaynos]

Hi, I think you may be interested to read the link at the bottom of my post here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=341938&postcount=3

 

It is on a similar line of thought as you've got.

[Royston]

i have a clever idea as to how parallel worlds may be springing up "as you read this sentence.", as Michio Kaku & others say could be possible

 

Hawking says a black hole is an infinitely small infinitely dense point in space. The big bang supposedly sprang from an infinitely small and infinitely dense point in space.

 

OK here it is. A star collapses, forms a black hole. Lets say instead of the matter being sucked in and stored in the center of the black hole, it actually has formed a parallel universe, and the matter being sucked in by the black hole is pumped into the new universe, expanding it.

 

A good and simple way to picture this is with 2 balloons, 1 filled and about to explode(a universe), the mouthpiece is connected to the mouthpiece of another empty balloon, the mouthpieces are both opened allowing the air to flow freely(black hole forms), and the full balloon expels its air through the pathway of the 2 mouthpieces and fills the second balloon(new universe).

 

Feedback please

-Ryan Flynn

 

r617flynn, you've said almost exactly the same thing here...http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=341830&postcount=1

there's no need to start another thread, just because you've thought of an analogy.

[alan2here]

Don't we get all the matter back from a black hole in hawking radiation?

[r617flynn]

thanks for the useless reply, actually i realized i posted in the wrong forum, so i reposted and wrote it different. thanks again for wasting yours and my time by replying

[alan2here]

Sorry, did I say something to annoy you?

[r617flynn]

sry alan, i wasnt specific, that message was too Snail for his rude reply. Your reply is the kind of feedback i was lookin for, although im not sure ur right on that 1.

 

More feedback PLEASE

[Realitycheck]

Now, just where is this parallel universe?

[alan2here]

According to r617flynn's theroy one inside every black hole agentchange.

 

 

Although i'm not sure that you are right on that one

Please Expand

[HG Bells]

r617flynn i think that if you read me theory then you will see that it may be that the black hole is a universe whether parallel or not or maybe a gateway to the just said

[r617flynn]

HG that kinda just confused me... im not sure what you mean...

[HG Bells]

it means that i started a thread that you might like to read and then you might understand what i said

[insane_alien]

HG, you do not have a theory. you have a hypothesis.

[HG Bells]

w/e

[alan2here]

Don't "whatever" insane_alien as he is verry smart.

[insane_alien]

thanks alan but i think we'll wait for my latest exam results on that one. i'm pretty sure i've failed business management practices. and possibly maths if only because i can't remember sitting it(though i know i was there).

 

and to expand on the whatever thing, theories and hypotheses are very important parts of science. a hypothesis is pretty much speculation and hasn't underwent very much investigation. a theory on the other hand has been proven correct(or at least better than current models) through experimentation and observations.

 

very different things.

[Realitycheck]

So basically, what we are trying to say is that the material that gets sucked into the black hole gets spewed out into another sphere that is right there, in spatial terms, but is rendered in another form of reality that is not recognizable within this plane of existence. Kind of like using another set of particles that are still right there spatially, but not able to be recognized within the framework of existence as we know it in our universe?

 

This dark energy is pretty interesting. Either way, black holes or dark stars, both of these are going to be extremely hot, right? Just like any star, and this will destroy anything that gets devoured by it, right? So the material left over is complete junk, cosmic ash, right?

 

The gravity of black holes has been proven, right? Do we have proof of celestial bodies spiralling in towards suspected black holes, whether they are black holes, or instead, dark stars?

 

Does anybody else have this feeling that some things are still explainable using standard old-school, plane-jane physics, just in ways that are not provable? So we come up with alternative schools that are equally not provable, just fancy math that looks good on paper? I'm not messing with QM, just things that are really out on the fringe, like parallel universes, wormholes, string theory, etc. How do these things get so popular? (no offense to anyone)

[foodchain]

I have a hypothesis on black holes also. I think when a star goes nova, the mass/energy/matter or whatever you want to call it gets put in a certain configuration which reflects in the behavior of the object. My idea does not put a black hole as an extra dimensional gateway or anything so neat. Besides that if the gravity was so strong as to overcome anything I don’t see how anything could exist really in it or it itself for that matter. I also don’t really see how I could ever test this wild idea I have like a great many of them.

[Realitycheck]

Ok, I am already correcting myself on one point, about the heat of black holes, or maybe, the absence of it.

 

It just doesn't make sense that a burned out star would have a gigantic gravitational signature. It's a burned out star. Which leads me back to the question, "We have documented proof of the gravity of a "black hole", right?", even if it might not actually be a "black hole", per se, right?

 

This is kind of hard to justify. If a "black hole" does have a gigantic gravitational signature, then it seems that there should be some kind of activity going on to justify it.

[SkepticLance]

As I understand this hypothesis, a black hole forms a portal to another universe and squirts half its mass through.

 

Would this not cut its gravity in half? I suspect that astronomers would have already observed some puzzling phenomena if that were the case. After all, they are now viewing energy outputs around black holes. A cut in gravity of 50% would surely have some dire and readily measurable effects.

[r617flynn]

hmmm expanding on that lance... and takin part from a similar post i made on another forum... There are energy outputs around blackholes.... OK i was thinking.... Only large stars form blackholes, large stars that are made of HEAVY elements.. Our universe started with mostly hydrogen and some helium, which would make no sense as far as my hypothesis goes because if a large star formed a new universe when it collapsed, then it would transfer its elements 1st, heavy elements, not hydrogen or helium. UNLESS it broke them down through a fission process, which would give off immense energy, which could account for the energy outputs around blackholes. Im not sure fission occurs naturally anywhere, but fusion does in stars, maybe fission does occur,in this process. Does that make any sense? im kinda tired and just went off the top of my head...i think im onto somethin tho

[bascule]

Sorry, Lee Smolin came up with this idea first, and he actually has the math to back it up:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

[SkepticLance]

to flynn

 

It may not matter what elements make up a large star, and the black hole that forms from it. We are treading into an area where data and know-how are tenuous. However, the current theory suggests that, when matter enters a black hole, information is lost. That means that, if a black hole spews out that matter into another universe, it need not take the form of the matter that originally entered the black hole. ie. if heavy elements entered, what leaves may be quite different - light elements, or more likely, something totally exotic.

[Royston]

thanks for the useless reply, actually i realized i posted in the wrong forum, so i reposted and wrote it different. thanks again for wasting yours and my time by replying

 

I was just advising you that if you've already started a thread, then there's no need to start another (whether you think it was an appropriate forum or not)...I was giving you advice, if that came across as rude, I apologize.

 

Only large stars form blackholes, large stars that are made of HEAVY elements.. Our universe started with mostly hydrogen and some helium, which would make no sense as far as my hypothesis goes because if a large star formed a new universe when it collapsed, then it would transfer its elements 1st, heavy elements, not hydrogen or helium.

 

I wouldn't worry about elements too much...remember the universe would have cooled quite sufficently before it was stable enough for hydrogen and helium to form, so elements wouldn't be transferred, as they wouldn't survive conditions approaching the planck scale. Which I presume is around the scale your 'universe from a black hole' hypothesis is concerned with.

 

As already mentioned in this thread, and your other one I'd look up Lee Smolin, and Abhay Ashtekar and perhaps check out the following...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#LQG_and_big_bang_singularity

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bounce

 

I realize it's wiki, but it's a start.

[lakmilis]

hail on that last line snail, some people here quote wiki like hell , thinking their posts are 'awesomely enlightening'