dual universe time mirror black hole theory

[PureGenius]

This is an article in nature , I think everyone will understand this is so close to my theory, I'm actually both excited and a little curious if there is any possibility of my original version of this theory to be accepted by the scientific community.

 

 

It could be time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye. Cosmologists have speculated that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.

 

The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.f

 

 

 

 

For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity, says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.

 

It is also difficult to explain how a violent Big Bang would have left behind a Universe that has an almost completely uniform temperature, because there does not seem to have been enough time since the birth of the cosmos for it to have reached temperature equilibrium.

 

To most cosmologists, the most plausible explanation for that uniformity is that, soon after the beginning of time, some unknown form of energy made the young Universe inflate at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. That way, a small patch with roughly uniform temperature would have stretched into the vast cosmos we see today. But Afshordi notes that the Big Bang was so chaotic, its not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on.

 

On the brane In a paper posted last week on the arXiv preprint server 1 , Afshordi and his colleagues turn their attention to a proposal 2 made in 2000 by a team including Gia Dvali, a physicist now at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany. In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a bulk universe that has four spatial dimensions.

 

Ashfordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole.

 

In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordis team modelled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand.

 

The authors postulate that the 3D Universe we live in might be just such a brane and that we detect the branes growth as cosmic expansion. Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang but that is just a mirage, says Afshordi.

 

Model discrepancy The model also naturally explains our Universes uniformity. Because the 4D bulk universe could have existed for an infinitely long time in the past, there would have been ample opportunity for different parts of the 4D bulk to reach an equilibrium, which our 3D Universe would have inherited.

 

The picture has some problems, however. Earlier this year, the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory released data that mapped the slight temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background the relic radiation that carries imprints of the Universes early moments. The observed patterns matched predictions made by the standard Big Bang model and inflation, but the black-hole model deviates from Planck's observations by about 4%. Hoping to resolve the discrepancy, Afshordi says that his is now refining its model.

 

Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model. The singularity is the most fundamental problem in cosmology and they have rewritten history so that we never encountered it, he says. Whereas the Planck results prove that inflation is correct, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says.

 

Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13743

 

 

 

 

I actually think my theory is more accurate , it wasn't a simple star collapse that formed our dualiverse it was a white hole black hole complex that included all the matter in our universe . This fourth dimensional space they speak of is improbable, unless we're already in this fourth dimension ie inside a black hole . I have not ascertained weather we are inside or outside our black hole white hole complex, yet I have stated repeatedly that there is a black hole at the center of our universe. My theory describes the expansion of our universes space and the white plasma that originated at the beginning of our universe. I am Shawn j the creator of the Dual Universe Theory .

Edited September 19, 2013 by PureGenius

[ajb]

I actually think my theory is more accurate...

Have a look at there paper and related preprints. See what they mean by a model and how they attempt to test it.

 

Then have a look at your "theory".

 

Please will you do this?

[swansont]

I do not think an object with mass can be physically accelerated using force I'm saying an electromagnetic wave traveling at 2 c a plasma cloud thrown out from our central black hole ,it would be more of bounce the waves magnetic polarity impinging on the galactic magnetic field then a sudden acceleration of say 200,000 miles per second . I also don't think any object can attain infinite mass .

 

EM waves cause physical acceleration "using force", and plasma is comprised of objects with mass. If you're going to give us gibberish, at least make it self-consistent gibberish.

[KrisMiss]

I don't think current sciences ,can create a black hole in a laboratory nor can the edge of the universe be seen through any telescope we possess..I am excited about the new telescope being built that will be 156 times more powerful than Hubble . Maybe then we can ascertain the speed of galaxy's at the edge of our universe and if they are in fact moving at the speed of light. Also I have more as I stated, more details as to evidence I'm still working on that but I will try and put my information into a more cohesive format as of now I'm not comfortable posting it . I have pulled my information from many sources so it's difficult to explain but I will try as soon as I can .

I think this is a great point. A theory can only go so far if you don't have the tools to completely test what your mind has come up with (if that makes sense...) Your ideas are extremely interesting to me, and i understand you don't have a lot of proof to back it up yet, but that's exactly why they call it a "theory", right?. but I definetly see multiple interesting ideas within your total theory, although some parts are missing, (and honestly when i say "missing" that might just be me not understanding some of it) but thats what the forum is about, to constantly gain new knowledge, brainstorm, expand and streamline new ideas.

 

I know your ideas have certainly made me think, and reevaluate the way i look at the creation of the universe.

 

I've persoally always had the opinion that a huge gravitational event is the only force strong enough (at least to my current understanding), like the big bang was involved to create our universe, but i like your ideas on that topic, i think many of your points have merit! Don't be disheartened by people picking apart your ideas...i think so many are good ones, and even tho people can be rough/a little mean, take their criticisms and use them to your advantage! even if you find they are wrong....or right!

 

I never even heard of a 4-d black hole before! It's awesome to think about this stuff! In a similar post of my own, i was trying to describe the gravitational relationship of everything to everything else, and i like the mesh idea a lot! It made my mind clear up a bit for my own theory.

 

I'd love to learn more about white holes/4-d black holes...any sites/links you would recommend?

and sometimes you can be a little rough yourself u know

but i definitely think you should keep researching with this idea! i think you could be on to something

[swansont]

i understand you don't have a lot of proof to back it up yet, but that's exactly why they call it a "theory", right?.

 

Actually, no. In science (and in particular, physics) a theory is a fairly complete model that has equations and is testable. Accepted theories have plenty of data to back them up. An untested proposal that still has some of the rigor we expect would be an hypothesis. None of that equates to a hand-wavy, jargon-laden stab in the dark.

[KrisMiss]

 

Actually, no. In science (and in particular, physics) a theory is a fairly complete model that has equations and is testable. Accepted theories have plenty of data to back them up. An untested proposal that still has some of the rigor we expect would be an hypothesis. None of that equates to a hand-wavy, jargon-laden stab in the dark.

oh ok, my bad

i do find it very intriguing, and i should certainly choose my words more accurately!

[ajb]

I'd love to learn more about white holes/4-d black holes...any sites/links you would recommend?

Roberto Emparan and Harvey S. Reall, Black Holes in Higher Dimensions, Living Rev. Relativity 11 (2008) 6.

 

You can find it here. It has a lot on 5d solutions, which is what you are interested in.

 

It very interesting, in more than four space-time dimensions you can have other black objects and not just holes.

[KrisMiss]

Roberto Emparan and Harvey S. Reall, Black Holes in Higher Dimensions, Living Rev. Relativity 11 (2008) 6.

 

You can find it here. It has a lot on 5d solutions, which is what you are interested in.

 

It very interesting, in more than four space-time dimensions you can have other black objects and not just holes.

Awesome! Thank you!

It's like looking at everything a whole new way for me! Mind blowing!

[PureGenius]

Well thanks Kris miss I'm really 100 percent on the black hole at the center of our universe Ajb you keep asking me were the center of the universe is well my answer is simply exactly were the largest black hole in our universe is . I think the fact that my content is very popular speaks for itself, my question is this if and when I'm proved right will you swan and Ajb be able to accept it.

[ajb]

Ajb you keep asking me were the center of the universe is well my answer is simply exactly were the largest black hole in our universe is.

Great answer!

 

So, let us assume we find some large black hole. The question has to be in what sense is that at the centre of the Universe? Please think hard about this and how that fits with the cosmological principal. Or do you simply reject this principal?

 

My other worry is that we could find more than one "super black hole" of similar sizes. How would we decide which one is at the centre?

 

I think the fact that my content is very popular speaks for itself...

I think you are making the wrong link here with number of views and/or replies with people actually thinking you are correct. We see the phenomena here of exactly the opposite.

 

..my question is this if and when I'm proved right will you swan and Ajb be able to accept it.

As you are vague, show no calculations and make elementary physics mistakes you can never be proved right. You could in retrospect try to fit your wild claims with any new developments in cosmology, but this would just be hand-waving and loose. For example, suggestions that black holes are important in cosmology is not something you can claim as your idea!

 

You seem a nice guy, but your nutty physics word salad is getting old.

[Phi for All]

Well thanks Kris miss I'm really 100 percent on the black hole at the center of our universe Ajb you keep asking me were the center of the universe is well my answer is simply exactly were the largest black hole in our universe is . I think the fact that my content is very popular speaks for itself, my question is this if and when I'm proved right will you swan and Ajb be able to accept it.

 

Dude, she was clearly thanking ajb for his link. That you construe this as praise for your idea is very disturbing.

[PureGenius]

I was thanking her for an earlier comment in this thread I find your overt misperceptions say more about you phi than they do about me did you actually read this whole thread ?

Considering that my posts receive an amazing amount of moderator attention it is difficult to maintain an objective attitude when the comments are so personal and offensive... I am just defending my position the only way I can which is logic and expanding the details of the Dualiverse Theory.

Edited September 19, 2013 by PureGenius

[KrisMiss]

I was thanking her for an earlier comment in this thread I find your overt misperceptions say more about you phi than they do about me did you actually read this whole thread ?

I understood which post you were thanking me for , i did not mean to cause any confusion! I also definitely think you are onto something with the black hole in the center of our universe, do you think it is three dimensional?

Roberto Emparan and Harvey S. Reall, Black Holes in Higher Dimensions, Living Rev. Relativity 11 (2008) 6.

 

You can find it here. It has a lot on 5d solutions, which is what you are interested in.

 

It very interesting, in more than four space-time dimensions you can have other black objects and not just holes.

I was definitely thanking you for the links on your post! I already took a peek at the site and can't wait to dig in some more! I'm sorry there was some confusion in the threads!

*thread

I was thanking her for an earlier comment in this thread I find your overt misperceptions say more about you phi than they do about me did you actually read this whole thread ?

Considering that my posts receive an amazing amount of moderator attention it is difficult to maintain an objective attitude when the comments are so personal and offensive... I am just defending my position the only way I can which is logic and expanding the details of the Dualiverse Theory.

I know which post you were thanking me for hun! Sorry for all the confusion! Sheesh!! lol!

[ajb]

I also definitely think you are onto something with the black hole in the center of our universe, do you think it is three dimensional?

One immediate problem that we have is what the heck does the centre mean? I am not being pedantic here, but this notion is uncomfortable with modern cosmology and what we have established about the Universe. Please take care reading things on this forum, especially in this section.

[KrisMiss]

I didn't mean to cause a problem...now i feel bad! i apologize!

[PureGenius]

It is 3 dimensional in our universe, 4 dimensional inside the plasma tunnel and the definition of an extra dimension can only be defined from the lower dimensional system, so I think the definition is not as important as the vortex physics of a black hole to be properly understood. Thanks again Kris miss great question. So the plane event horizon of our universe is 3d but once you enter black hole this space I's in the fourth dimension, s according to modern sciences interpretation. I hope this helps clear up any confusion you might have Kris miss.

[KrisMiss]

One immediate problem that we have is what the heck does the centre mean? I am not being pedantic here, but this notion is uncomfortable with modern cosmology and what we have established about the Universe. Please take care reading things on this forum, especially in this section.

I know that we can't actually calculate the true center of the universe, we just don't have the technology yet, but i still think it's an interesting idea, and could very well work. I also like to entertain the idea of our universe actually being inside a black hole. What are your thoughts on that? I find both of these ideas fascinating!

[ajb]

I hope this helps clear up any confusion you might have Kris miss.

I am sure it does!

[KrisMiss]

It is 3 dimensional in our universe, 4 dimensional inside the plasma tunnel and the definition of an extra dimension can only be defined from the lower dimensional system, so I think the definition is not as important as the vortex physics of a black hole to be properly understood. Thanks again Kris miss great question. So the plane event horizon of our universe is 3d but once you enter black hole this space I's in the fourth dimension, s according to modern sciences interpretation. I hope this helps clear up any confusion you might have Kris miss.

That is fascinating to think about! It's honestly something i've never thought of before. I'm just starting to dip my toes in all this, but wow! Do you think the center of the universe is constant? or could it fluctuate?

[ajb]

I know that we can't actually calculate the true center of the universe, we just don't have the technology yet, but i still think it's an interesting idea, and could very well work.

It is not a question of technology.

 

A simple example consider a sphere. That is the surface of a ball. Can you tell me what point is its centre?

 

 

 

I also like to entertain the idea of our universe actually being inside a black hole. What are your thoughts on that? I find both of these ideas fascinating!

We kind of are, we live inside our own horizon, the observable Universe.

[swansont]

Well thanks Kris miss I'm really 100 percent on the black hole at the center of our universe Ajb you keep asking me were the center of the universe is well my answer is simply exactly were the largest black hole in our universe is .

That's not an acceptable answer.

 

I think the fact that my content is very popular speaks for itself, my question is this if and when I'm proved right will you swan and Ajb be able to accept it.

You keep avoiding any discussion of anything that will prove you right. Popularity is not the issue.

[KrisMiss]

It is not a question of technology.

 

A simple example consider a sphere. That is the surface of a ball. Can you tell me what point is its centre?

 

 

 

 

We kind of are, we live inside our own horizon, the observable Universe.

You don't think its possible that the center of the universe could fluctuate? I understand what you're saying, i just don't think we are able to accurately measure the true center of the universe...isint that what you said in a previous post? or did i mis interpret?

One immediate problem that we have is what the heck does the centre mean? I am not being pedantic here, but this notion is uncomfortable with modern cosmology and what we have established about the Universe. Please take care reading things on this forum, especially in this section.

Did i misinterpret what you meant here about the center?

It is not a question of technology.

 

A simple example consider a sphere. That is the surface of a ball. Can you tell me what point is its centre?

 

 

 

 

We kind of are, we live inside our own horizon, the observable Universe.

Our own observable horizon...i really like that idea!

[ajb]

In standard cosmologies, for example the now standard lambda CDM model, the Universe started 13.6 Billion years ago and started to expand ever since. There is no centre of the Universe as the expansion is the same everywhere. You should not picture a big explosion with everything flying out from a centre, but rather the space-time itself is expanding.

 

As far as we can tell, this expansion is the same everywhere in space. This fits well with the cosmological principal; "nowhere is special". For example, Hubble's law would look the same whatever point in space you happen to take the measurements!

 

This is why we are very uneasy about the claim of a centre of the Universe. It just does not sit well with standard cosmology that has stood up to lots of tests.

 

So PureGeneus could now proclaim a very big black hole defines the centre of the Universe. But this I think would be incorrect and a huge violation of the cosmological principal. For sure this "centre" is not the centre of the expansion, so it what sense is it the centre? It looks like a "marked point" to me rather than anything special.

[swansont]

You don't think its possible that the center of the universe could fluctuate? I understand what you're saying, i just don't think we are able to accurately measure the true center of the universe...isint that what you said in a previous post? or did i mis interpret?

 

There is no center. The example is looking at the surface of a sphere: where is the center of that surface? There is no edge, and how can you have a center with no edge?

[KrisMiss]

 

There is no center. The example is looking at the surface of a sphere: where is the center of that surface? There is no edge, and how can you have a center with no edge?

Thanks for the clarification