Univers Inside a black hole

[SamBridge]

Here, maybe reading something will help clear it up for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

Alright, that seems to explain it. so what about observing an influx of hydrogen atoms or ions from that epoch? Or what about neutrinos? Neutrinos wouldn't even be affected by the scattering. I guess we'll just have to see when we get a good enough telescope, I'd imagine those particles would take considerably longer to reach Earth though, at least from that distance.

 

Also, I know about the homogeneity model of space-time, but I still have questions regarding that. In purely flat 3-D space, it wouldn't make a lot of sense that if I was 100000 light years from something and saw it receding at an angle of say, 2pi, and then I traveled to the other side of it, I'd see it receding at an angle of pi back towards my original position enough to say that if I considered both positions at the same time, the net motion should be 0. I could see it in curved space 4-D space, but we know space isn't naturally curved 4-dimensionally, so what property of 5 dimensional space allows that spacial property?

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[Edgard Neuman]

There's several things I suppose :

- I only speak about simplest black hole (no momentum, no electric charge)
- since the black hole a least huge mass in a restricted volume, matter can't be in a the same state that it is outside. And it seem to exist a complete range of different state for the matter : Stars are made of plasma, neutron stars are like a big nucleus and quark star made of degenerate matter etc....
- the very concept of relativity, is that ultimately the state of matter is subject to relativity.
Because space and time are submitted to relativity : what we see as a compressed space for a moving object is for itself a totaly regular space.

- because every object is globaly not moving for us, the relativity effect are only "local". so globally the matter is simply in a dense state in a closed volume. But, localy, because of general relativity, the space itself near the horizon is moving at the speed of light (from our point of view).

- special relativity tells us what it look like from our point of view (the lorentz transformation) when you move at the speed of light : the space is infinitely compressed, the time is stopped. But it is only from our point of view, because for the moving object, nothing is changed (of course : extreme geometry of spacetime tears things apart, but at each infinitesimal point, is like regulare space time)

- So when we look at matter inside the black, it should be, relatively for us, in a state that is the same state as a light speed particule : no time. Time is ultimately a property of matter mesured by "events" in the "law". Like a clock sets a regular serie of "clic" events. So what we would see : is "no events" : no clics, frozen matter.

- Causality is at the core of the definition of time : and so, relativity is based on the shifting of causality (the "now moment") around space (that's what is the lorentz transformation)
- law of physics doesn't depend on causality : it means that we must think that when we go "out" of time and causality, univers may just be like a story ruled by laws. Ultimately, some things are "according to the laws", some aren't, regarless to causality (like the univers would be a set of mathematic axiomes)
Like a story on a DVD would be only guided by the logic of the character or initial conditions. The DVD would "evolve" like we would make a story evolve: adding more and more complexity anywhere from the start to the end of the story.
- the horizon tells also us that black holes gain more and more entropy, and that this entropy is proportionnal to the surface of the horizon.

- the holographic principle state that the degree of liberty of a physical system is also proportionnal to the surface of the matter. It state that the content in information of a volume of matter is only proportionnal to its surface.
- If we considere what lorentz tranformation is, a space/time which is bent to the speed c, may be considered like a "90°" rotated space time (the lorentz transformation can be seen as hyperbolic rotation, since dt²+(v/c)²=1 ). A 90° rotation of "v/c" and "dt" can be interpreted as a swap of dimensions (like x and y are swapped by a 90° rotation).


So my idea is to consider that what's inside the black hole is (relatively) out of time for us (because what is after the horizon is supposed in a space time moving (just localy) faster than light so the light can't escape) and may be in a frozen state. For us : no "clics" would be observable (which is simply the application of the special relativity). Relativity is more than just what we see : it describe really how things are in the euclidean space we imagine for us. So the black hole is not just a hole : the matter in it really change it's state and the geometry and timespace for it is really different in regards to the point of view. The same reality is mesured differently.
If we had matter to the black hole : it grows. The matter in the black hole would be an entire univers, but the time of it would be described for us as the distance from the center. Each surface of sphere in the black would be spatial dimensions of the inner univers. Maybe adding matter would add complexity to the inner univers, like the story of a DVD would become more complex (maybe it would be some time added to the inner univers).

It's purely speculative ideas.

[SamBridge]

 

- the very concept of relativity, is that ultimately the state of matter is subject to relativity.

Because space and time are submitted to relativity : what we see as a compressed space for a moving object is for itself a totaly regular space.

- because every object is globaly not moving for us, the relativity effect are only "local". so globally the matter is simply in a dense state in a closed volume. But, localy, because of general relativity, the space itself near the horizon is moving at the speed of light (from our point

So if a ship moved at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, would it have the properties of degenerate matter due to extreme length contraction making it appear denser? And what do you make of the expansion of space causing things to move in reference to us eventually to beyond the speed of light?

Edited April 21, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

 

 

So if a ship moved at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, would it have the properties of degenerate matter due to extreme length contraction making it appear denser?

No, because in the ships own reference frame it is not contracted.

[SamBridge]

No, because in the ships own reference frame it is not contracted.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no too, but I don't think you actually explained it. With that logic, I could say time is universal and not relative because someone else counts time normally from their frame.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

 

 

With that logic, I could say time is universal and not relative because someone else counts time normally from their frame.

Everyone always counts time normally in their frame, regardless of their relative motion with other frames. If I count time in another frame in relative motion to mine, I will see their time as passing slower, but as far as they're concerned, their time is normal, and my time is slow. Time IS relative.

[SamBridge]

Everyone always counts time normally in their frame, regardless of their relative motion with other frames. If I count time in another frame in relative motion to mine, I will see their time as passing slower, but as far as they're concerned, their time is normal, and my time is slow. Time IS relative.

Right, so you can't necessarily use other frames in place of your own. Just because someone else measures time normally from their frame doesn't mean I will see it that way. Just because density seems normal from their frame doesn't mean I will see that same density, so I don't think your original statement does the answer justice. I think a better direction forward is to say things can appear smaller but relativistically count distance with a shorter metric and appear to have a different mass and appeared slow down because of the changing metric, there's likely something about the geometry of contracted space-time that is kept constant, though I don't see exactly what it is.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

My original statement is what you're now agreeing with.

[SamBridge]

My original statement is what you're now agreeing with.

No you're original statement implied that one frame's measurements are universal because you'd be stating that if the aliens measure a density being a certain number, other people must measure that same number, which isn't true, it isn't true for space, it isn't true for time, it's not going to be true for density either.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

No you're original statement implied that one frame's measurements are universal because you'd be stating that if the aliens measure a density being a certain number, other people must measure that same number, which isn't true, it isn't true for space, it isn't true for time, it's not going to be true for density either.

I'm not sure where you get that statement from, because it's certainly nothing I would say or agree with. What post number are you referring to.

[SamBridge]

I'm not sure where you get that statement from, because it's certainly nothing I would say or agree with. What post number are you referring to.

#29.

[Edgard Neuman]

So if a ship moved at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, would it have the properties of degenerate matter due to extreme length contraction making it appear denser? And what do you make of the expansion of space causing things to move in reference to us eventually to beyond the speed of light?

No, what I meant is that the inner univers could appear similar to ours when seen from the inside, and still appear frozen in time and ultra-compressed around the center from our point of view (the outside). (with a full 90° Lorentz tranformation)..

Just like a 0.999 ship would appear compressed to us and still be itself.

The only difference here is the spherical aspect of the black hole, imposing tearing of matter. If the space around black hole was linearly distorded (if the black hole had an infinite radius), and softly curved, a space ship could survive it.

There's an other fact I think of :

Some say that black hole could be a "doorway" to another univers. But a thing is sure : the matter that goes into the black hole stay there, because we can still mesure its mass and gravity.

If the univers inside was somehow connected to others door or opened etc, we could imagine some kind of mecanisme that explain the mesured mass by the content of the inner univers, but it would not strictly depend on the mass that entered the black hole since its creation.

For instance : a black hole would be linked to another empty or massive univers, and would have any mass. Or the matter gone inside would fly away in the inner univers and so the black hole would loose weight by itself. Or some matter from the other side would go inside the black hole, and we would see it gain mass for no reason.

It would also be difficult to imagine a mecanism that explain the mass only by the space curvature (without the matter), because it would imply that potentially any curvature would be self-generating.

So I suppose that all the matter that goes inside stays inside and is localised there from our point of view.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Edgard Neuman

[SamBridge]

 

No, what I meant is that the inner univers could appear similar to ours when seen from the inside,

Before we even look at that, how do we get to the "outer" universe to distinguish the difference?

[ACG52]

 

 

#29.

Post 29 is correct.

 

 

 

No, because in the ships own reference frame it is not contracted.

In their own reference frame there is no contraction of dilation noticed.

 

No you're original statement implied that one frame's measurements are universal because you'd be stating that if the aliens measure a density being a certain number, other people must measure that same number, which isn't true, it isn't true for space, it isn't true for time, it's not going to be true for density either.

 

It implied nothing like that. It stated that relativistic effects are not measured in an inertial frame by an observer in that frame. No one brought up aliens, or stated that everyone would measure the same thing.

[Delta1212]

No you're original statement implied that one frame's measurements are universal because you'd be stating that if the aliens measure a density being a certain number, other people must measure that same number, which isn't true, it isn't true for space, it isn't true for time, it's not going to be true for density either.

Let's put it this way: the effects of density are frame dependent.

 

Let's say you have a black hole and a star of the same mass that is exactly half as dense.

 

You accelerate the star to a speed such that it is length contracted to half its rest volume. It's now twice as dense, but it's not a black hole. You can't compare the density of the black hole at rest with the density of the length contracted star. If you accelerate the black hole to the same velocity, the black hole will increase in density by the same proportion as the star, and that's the density the star needs to achieve to become a black hole in that length contracted frame.

 

There's not a universally correct frame, but length contraction doesn't change how an object interacts within its own frame, and every frame can determine what an object's density in its own frame is, which is the density that determines how it behaves.

[SamBridge]

Post 29 is correct.

Mm, no it's not, what you measure the apparent density as depends entirely on your frame of reference, it's not guaranteed to always be the same.

 

 

In their own reference frame there is no contraction of dilation noticed.

Which doesn't matter, any frame that measures them as moving or is in a different gravitational potential will see differences in the way it counts time. As I keep saying, just because someone looks normal in one frame doesn't mean it works like that in every frame.

 

 

It stated that relativistic effects are not measured in an inertial frame by an observer in that frame.

Which would have absolutely no meaning to the situation whatsoever unless you were trying to imply what I said you implied.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

 

 

As I keep saying, just because someone looks normal in one frame doesn't mean it works like that in every frame.

So you're saying there are inertial frames were things would not look normal to those in the frame?

[SamBridge]

There's not a universally correct frame, but length contraction doesn't change how an object interacts within its own frame, and every frame can determine what an object's density in its own frame is, which is the density that determines how it behaves.

But it doesn't matter what something else says its density is because it will be measured differently from any number of infinite frames. You do not model density universally as its proper density, it follows relativistic rules like any other dimensional property and can be modeled as relative mass / relativistic volume, what you're saying is like saying if someone travels at 90% the speed of light then throws something in front of them at 2 miles per hour, everyone else will see the thrown object traveling at 2 miles per hour just because the thrower sees it that way even though that's wrong and it would have to travel at least at 90% the speed of light from any outside frame that views that someone as moving 90% the speed of light themselves.

 

You accelerate the star to a speed such that it is length contracted to half its rest volume. It's now twice as dense, but it's not a black hole. You can't compare the density of the black hole at rest with the density of the length contracted star. If you accelerate the black hole to the same velocity, the black hole will increase in density by the same proportion as the star, and that's the density the star needs to achieve to become a black hole in that length contracted frame.

The scenario you described doesn't seem to show a real difference. There's equations to model relative density, it's not something that's made up, it has real effects, it's relative mass in the smaller volume. It's more likely that the atomic structures themselves are contracted, thus the distance between the atomic structures never becomes critical.

 

So you're saying there are inertial frames were things would not look normal to those in the frame?

If they were in a different gravitational potential but still standing still from a near luminal object's frame, sure. And in addition to that, some frames agreeing still wouldn't mean every frame will agree. If they did, special relativity wouldn't exist.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[Delta1212]

The scenario you described doesn't seem to show a real difference. There's equations to model relative density, it's not something that's made up, it has real effects, it's relative mass in the smaller volume. It's more likely that the atomic structures themselves are contracted, thus the distance between the atomic structures never becomes critical.

Well, yes. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the confusion here is.

 

Also, every frame behaving exactly the same way within said frame is one of the central pillars of relativity. If different (inertial) frames behaved differently to observers within those frames, that would undermine relativity, not give rise to it.

[SamBridge]

Well, yes. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the confusion here is.

The difference is you didn't really explain why a contracted star is guaranteed to not become a black hole, you just said a black hole contracts and a star contracts, and there's some relation between the way a star contracts and the way a black hole does.

 

Also, every frame behaving exactly the same way within said frame is one of the central pillars of relativity. If different (inertial) frames behaved differently to observers within those frames, that would undermine relativity, not give rise to it.

But it's not the pillar of relativity, it's the pillar of logic and reasoning itself, relativity already assumes it in the same way that it assumes 1+1=2. There's already no logical way something can be outside of its own frame.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

if we were in a black hole there would be a noticeable difference in concentration of structure within the universe. there would be signs of a center of mass even if it were outside our viewing area. beyond this, the universe is expanding in an accelerating fashion which implies that gravity is not winning (not a black hole). you would also have to assume some kind of speed gradient applied across the visible universe if there was a singularity beyond the horizon. in almost every way one can think of, the universe does not show similarities of a black hole.

[Edgard Neuman]

If I may speak about this :

Density is defined for a given volume at a certain moment, but the volume would be changed (by a transformation) in shape but also in space time : the back of the volume would be late in past.

That's the same problem with the earth seen from a light-speed particle point of view : it's compressed into a disc, nearly frozen in time, but law of physics are still the same in it because the back of the flat disc isn't directly in the same time as the front.

Let's say somebody on earth send a photon from the back to the front side of earth disc (in the particle frame). From the particle point of view, the photon goes through the disc very fast (because it's compressed), but because the back of the disc is very late in (earth) time, it would still be coherent with the earth point of view and physics.

The compressed (by relativity) star wouldn't become a black hole, because the front and the back wouldn't be in contact : because the whole star is moving near the speed of light, a photon coming from the back of it would have to travel a very long time to catch up with the front of the star. In contrary, a photon coming from the front to the back have to travel (in our frame) a very short time.

So probably that if you sum the effect of photon going from the back to the front (very slowly) and those going in the other direction (very fast), you statisticaly come to the same interaction probabilities that if it was in a immobile star. I suppose the "gravity field" would also be compressed and time shifted from back to front.

It's the "common" explanation, but it's still strange to me. For instance, if we consider particle as a sphere : it mean that, for some reason, the global speed of the star would "compress" also the particles into flat disc (for the interaction probability to be coherent with a regular star).. same things for quarks in protons and neutrons : nucleus in the fast star would be for some reason flattened.

The situation is very different for the black hole as a system because it is localy curved, but globaly immobile. So of course, a ship would feel its left part crushed into its right part approching the black hole, because the distorsion wouldn't be globally as simple as a frame change. That's actually the geometric curvature of the frames that explain the acceleration.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Edgard Neuman

[ACG52]

 

 

If they were in a different gravitational potential but still standing still from a near luminal object's frame, sure. And in addition to that, some frames agreeing still wouldn't mean every frame will agree. If they did, special relativity wouldn't exist.

You keep harping, mistakenly on agreement between frames. Let's put it this was, no two different frames will agree on length or time.

[MigL]

Both I and ACG52 will agree that Delta1212 is mistaken as are you Sam. Density is frame INDEPENDANT.

In other words, relativistic length contraction and mass increase DO NOT affect the density of an object as they do not change in their own frame.

They are only RELATIVE ( to other frames ) effects.

 

Hence the name

[SamBridge]

Both I and ACG52 will agree that Delta1212 is mistaken as are you Sam. Density is frame INDEPENDANT.

In other words, relativistic length contraction and mass increase DO NOT affect the density of an object as they do not change in their own frame.

They are only RELATIVE ( to other frames ) effects.

 

Hence the name

Actually, all 4 of you are wrong, maybe even I was too, I derived the equation for relative density. If we assume a cubical object with the x and y components forming a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion, and we call one side K1 and another K2 (which are both constants), then the relative density can be modeled as follows:

 

[math] Mo/(K1*K2*Lo)*(1/(1-V^2/C^2)) = (m/v)' [/math] or [math] D' = Do/(K1*K2(1/1-v^2/c^2))[/math]

 

So these means density definitely varies, and in fact, you get an increased mass in an even smaller volume. So now all that's left is to show with some equation that relates density to the distance between atoms and mass that forms a finite volume that the atoms will shrink as they approach the speed of light in such a way that length the cube is contracted by will be less than the proportion of the proportion of the relative distance between atoms and the new dimensional size of the atoms themselves that show their electro-magnetic fields will also contract in the direction of motion therefore inhibiting matter from reaching a degenerate state.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge