Crackpot theory: Black holes violate Causality

[mephox]

If the following things are true about black holes:

 

1. A black hole is not a finitely (however enormously so) steep depression in the fabric of space-time, but in fact a hole that leads to another point in the space-time continuum.
2. For the length of a black hole's existence all matter drawn into a black hole exits at the same point in space-time. IE: The black hole does not simply erupt matter continuously throughout its entire existence, from formation to eventual deterioration, at the same rate it sucks it in, but all matter for all of its existence erupts at the same point in space-time all at once (mini-big bang)
3. All black holes everywhere lead to the same point in space-time

Then it may be possible that Universal Causality is lost because the black holes that we witness now are the cause of the big bang.

 

Some of the reasoning behind this is thus and deals mostly with the various dimensions of space-time - 1-4 and one extra - 5.

 

1 Dimension - Contains only itself possibly a part of quantum string theory - 1 dimensional lines with no depth or width but defined length. co

2 Dimensions - Contains all 1 dimensional things and adds width to the universe. A further extension of string theory - 2 dimensional shapes with no depth but defined width and length

3 Dimensions - contains all two dimensional items and 1 dimensional items and builds on both to make matter with volume and not just surface area.

4 Dimensions - Contains all 3 dimensional items - all matter is contained within the 4th dimension. A slice of the fourth dimension would be the entire universe at a single moment in time.

5 Dimensions - Contains all of time - a possible place for the many worlds theory of quantum superposition and also where the black holes would have to break into in order for the above crackpot theory to be correct.

 

If black holes only broke into the 4th dimension they may open onto another point in space-time that we cannot possibly observe from our position (maybe even earth's position a billion year's in the future) A black hole (or all black holes) would need to break into the 5th dimension and arrive at the point where all time begins - the center of the 5th dimension if 'center' would be the appropriate term for something that I cannot conceive of visually - being a person who views things in the third dimension.

 

In the fifth dimension time for a being who can conceive of five dimensions (for the sake of argument) all of time would be happening instantaneously from the moment it started to the moment it ends (if it does indeed end). Of course, it's also possible (and unlikely since we're still here) that if black holes broke into the 5th dimension, then all of creation would suffer the effects at random (who knows what pieces of creation are next to each other in a dimension that only math that is higher than my current level of understanding can describe). Or maybe this is a possible explanation of Gamma Ray Burst events and my initial crackpot theory is close but not correct at all.

 

Of course, being a crackpot theory, it has a great potential to be wildly inaccurate and not at all close to reality, but its still fun to ponder as science fiction.

 

Apologies. This should probably go into the Trash Can as un-provable.

 

-The author of the above post.

[md65536]

If the following things are true about black holes:

 

1. A black hole is not a finitely (however enormously so) steep depression in the fabric of space-time, but in fact a hole that leads to another point in the space-time continuum.
2. For the length of a black hole's existence all matter drawn into a black hole exits at the same point in space-time. IE: The black hole does not simply erupt matter continuously throughout its entire existence, from formation to eventual deterioration, at the same rate it sucks it in, but all matter for all of its existence erupts at the same point in space-time all at once (mini-big bang)
3. All black holes everywhere lead to the same point in space-time

Then it may be possible that Universal Causality is lost because the black holes that we witness now are the cause of the big bang.

 

Also a crackpot here.

 

I imagine that the problem here is not one of causality, but one of conservation of energy (mass).

If all information were destroyed when entering a black hole, there might be no way of affecting the past and breaking causality???

 

I suppose you're implying that all of the energy from the big bang would come from stuff that falls into black holes during the lifetime of the universe? Wouldn't this mean that conservation of energy would require that all matter eventually falls into a black hole? (Possibly a big crunch.) I don't think that's going to happen; isn't heat death the expected end of the universe?

 

Speaking of conservation of energy, when matter falls into a black hole, the black hole increases in mass accordingly. So say with our perception of time, that mass continues on in the black hole, I guess until the black hole evaporates. Are you suggesting that from some other perspective, our perception of, say, "forever" is a single instant... uh... in which mass somehow cycles between big bang and the mass' lifetime, including eventual swallowing by a black hole?

 

 

[ajb]

Not crackpot science now; black holes may violate unitary, or just classically Liouville's theorem. This is a source of much confusion about black holes.

[md65536]

Looking up stuff from ajb's post I came across this:

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

 

It sounds similar to your idea, including something about the singularity you could get by treating a black hole's eternity as a single instant... but the resulting big bang would be separate from "our" big bang---a separate causally disconnected universe or something.

 

I much prefer this idea. I think that "looping back in time" leaves more questions and explains little. I would avoid thinking that anything breaks causality unless that is the only conclusion left. Or unless there was some evidence of a violation... which to me is akin to finding evidence that reality is inconsistent.

 

 

But who knows. Decades ago some scientists considered the idea that for example all electrons have the same properties because they are the same single electron, moving forward through time and backward as antimatter, an astronomical number of times simultaneously. Anyway, still I think that if you can make sense of stuff moving or jumping backward in time, you'll find that the idea doesn't violate causality, or it doesn't correspond to reality.

[mephox]

One of the thing's that's fascinated me about black hole's recently is the fact that despite being theoretically a 'hole' in the fabric of space-time, black holes move and behave much like other bodies of mass in the universe. They can orbit things, other things can orbit them. They move throughout the universe in much the same way other celestial objects do. I believe the term black hole is likely the cause of much confusion. True, light does not escape it, and true it has no 'size' in the form of other matter in the universe.

 

But, if we were to treat it as a hole in, say a block of Jello (letting Jello represent the fabric of space time because it is 3 dimensional, unlike paper and mattresses and other things that have been used before). If you put a marble on a block of jello, it dents the jello but does not fall through. Things can conceivably orbit the jello. Push the marble through the jello and the jello closes up behind it. I'm not saying this is an accurate representation of what happens, but based on observation of mass and gravity, the space time continuum resists being flexed fairly forcefully and will readily resume its previous shape after the object causing the flex moves on. If this were not true, we'd be leaving gravitational eddies and wakes behind our planet and very likely orbital mechanics would work very differently (gravity surfing, for example). Similarly, putting a hole into the fabric of space-time should cause the surrounding area to flex violently and briefly before springing back - leaving a tiny hole that can be opened again without further causing much of a disruption of the fabric around it - which is plainly not what we can observe about black holes.

 

That is, if I understand the physics behind the jello-reality comparison correctly. Of course, because we are working with four dimensions and not three (jello) and obviously jello does not bend inward when you stick a marble in the middle of it, then this comparison may be off in ways that I can't imagine at the moment but I am sure are quite correct. But considering that we use paper and trampolines and bedsheets to demonstrate this effect much more simply, I believe the comparison is more apt.

 

If, however, a black hole does NOT break through space-time and instead creates such a deep depression that light itself cannot escape and time acts strangely around it (similar to putting jello into a flexible mold with high surface tension) then we would see the same things that we observe now, correct? What I'm saying is, what if a black hole's matter and energy never leaves this universe? What if it never breaks into a parallel or alternate universe? That would explain black hole evaporation, certainly - it's still here and the stress of space-time trying to return to normal gradually causes a black hole that does not 'eat' to evaporate what its eaten in the past out into the universe.

 

Yet another alternate possibility is that the black hole DOES break through into an alternate universe and instead of just dumping everything into a white hole (which I still believe is a possible explanation for GRB events) and snapping back, it dumps everything out into a white hole and then creates a permanent or semi-permanent (on the scale of the lifetime of the universe anyway) bridge/tunnel through space-time into this alternate universe and space-time on our side stays bent and still acts like a normal celestial object (for the purposes of gravitational physics) because space-time IS still bent, but not broken through and the other side of the tunnel attaches itself to the other space-time fabric. Which does not account for black holes evaporating - unless it takes a certain size of black hole to actually puncture space-time in such a way - much the same way there are observable laws about the way other celestial objects behave at certain mass thresholds (type 1A supernovae for example).

 

There are just so many possibilities that its making my head hurt trying to reason out which one is the more likely. I couldn't possibly list all the possibilities in my head because I can barely grasp at the ideas myself - they're just vaguely formed notions based on what I personally know, or think I know, about physics, gravity and the nature and state of space-time and I think we will need to learn more about the fabric of space-time before we can adequately explain what a black hole IS and what it DOES in more precise terms than what we can observe and deduce through mathematical equations and applications of other theoretical physics.

 

Looking up stuff from ajb's post I came across this:

http://en.wikipedia....yclic_Cosmology

 

It sounds similar to your idea, including something about the singularity you could get by treating a black hole's eternity as a single instant... but the resulting big bang would be separate from "our" big bang---a separate causally disconnected universe or something.

 

I much prefer this idea. I think that "looping back in time" leaves more questions and explains little. I would avoid thinking that anything breaks causality unless that is the only conclusion left. Or unless there was some evidence of a violation... which to me is akin to finding evidence that reality is inconsistent.

 

 

But who knows. Decades ago some scientists considered the idea that for example all electrons have the same properties because they are the same single electron, moving forward through time and backward as antimatter, an astronomical number of times simultaneously. Anyway, still I think that if you can make sense of stuff moving or jumping backward in time, you'll find that the idea doesn't violate causality, or it doesn't correspond to reality.

 

That's extremely interesting... I had no idea such a theory was out there before I posited mine. And I do agree with you on the point of looping back in time - It was a theory that occurred to me as I was listening to Carl Sagan's Cosmos program from the 80s. We'll see what scientists uncover in the future. I am extremely interested in what CERN manages to discover for instance, but doubt that we will get much closer to discovering the Higg's boson anytime soon. Narrowing down the specific mass may take quite a long time and we may even be grasping at straws. After all - an infinite number of variations exist between 90 and 300 GeV. But who knows... Quantum mechanics is spooky. We may get 'lucky'.