Univers Inside a black hole

[Edgard Neuman]

information about something is a description of all its properties. For instance, any computer file contains bits, that when properly decoded are used to create "pictures" / "sound" / "movie" / "video games" properties of what is coded is stored in the file..

The physical object information is on, is by definition not related to the object described. For instance, all books are made of papers, but stories they are about are infinite in shape.
You could write those same bits on a piece of paper, or engrave it on a rock, or magnetic state of RAM, even change the language, or translate it into wifi radio wave packets. If the black hole is a support for information (by some structure we don't know) those information could describe a univers, without any relationship between the inner and the outer geometry.
What is important, is the "quantity" of information a physical volume contains.. the way how it would be written on a surface is not told.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

I don't believe your even looking at the links I'm providing. Perhaps you'll at least read the non math portion of this one. As it does correlate your bits to entropy information.

 

Quantum information theory of entanglement and measurement http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605039v2.pdf

 

"Quantum information theory is the study of the achievable limits of information processing within quantum mechanics. Many different types of information can be accommodated within quantum mechanics, including classical information,coherent quantum information,and entanglement"

 

here is a dissertation.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/476522/files/0011036.pdf The descriptive you supplied is already explained in this dissertation

 

[Edgard Neuman]

I don't believe your even looking at the links I'm providing. Perhaps you'll at least read the non math portion of this one. As it does correlate your bits to entropy information.

 

You're right, I'll read everylink you posted, and I'll answer you maybe next year.

 

 

Although I've spend a long time trying to understand quantum mecanics.

 

- I understand the Feynman diagram is used to obtain probability for any state of particles. (I know that works)

- I understand how math are used to define particule according to what Feynman diagramme define : function giving speed position probabilities from space time position.. Those function are quantum "fields"

etc.. and the way those field are linked by math.

- I thus understand that complex math are used to describe Feynman diagramm results : ultimatly it's not more complicated that understing every possible trajectories of a ball whose existence is given by a rotating complexe number (who are added)

- I believe, that decoherence, is a ermerging effect, therefor I suppose a particule (its energy) is like a full tree of possible trajectories, whose improbable branchs are constantly discarded. (so what we mesure is somehow the last story that survived, like a common ancestor of all current quantum states)

 

- I understand that a qubit is a superposition of two state that are not simply resolved into one mesured state. So it stays a mix of two state : it stores a full scale of two choices. It's still "information".

Although it's quantic, It's only two complex number, or 4 classical real numbers.

 

Can you just tell me what is your point ?

Edited May 7, 2014 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

lol point taken, anyways the dissertation should cover quantum information theory

[Edgard Neuman]

I've read an article (simplified) explaining what would be the univers that fit with the holographic principle :

It would be a 3D (+time) anti-de sitter space : a hyperbolic space.

It would still be infinite inside, but because it has a negative curvature, its limit can be described as a 2D surface (+time)

The theory says that a quantum theory of particle with more colors (more different type of particules) on the limit surface of the hyperbolic space would be equivalent to a quantic gravitationnal theory inside the univers. The projection is not trivial : nature of outside particule are what defines the missing dimension inside.

 

here's an article written by the same author :
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.6126.pdf

 

(if someone can explain it to me, he's welcome)

[Mordred]

your close, Ads/Cft isn't particularly my area of expertise, so I'll try to provide you some direction best I can. Now that you have narrowed out what your after these are far more related than my previous articles lol. Keep in mind ADS/CFT involves M-theory as well as conformal field theory. Keep in mind there is no easy way to explain this. I wish I could simplify the metrics for you on it however I'm not up to par on it, so the best I can do is supply some research direction. For one thing my string theory isn't great lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_de_Sitter_space This portion is described by m-theory rather than the Einstein field equations. (if I understand it correctly)

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

 

An Introduction to Conformal Field Theory

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9910156v2.pdf

Introducing Conformal Field Theory

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/four.pdf

Applied Conformal Field Theory

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9108028.pdf

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_theory

An Introduction to Generalized Yang-Mills Theories

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0102055.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 

putting these together you have below

Introduction to ADS/CFT

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.0689v2.pdf

 

this particular article is over 800 pages long, however has QFT,CFT,String and ADS/CFT in it

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

Edited May 10, 2014 by Mordred

[supernovablackholes]

I haven't read the whole thread here, but I was going to ask this same question. I read somewhere that the universe might exist inside a black hole, and there is another universe that holds on to the black hole we're living in.
Also, I remember reading that if our universe exists in a black hole then it's at the Cauchy horizon, aren't space and time stable there?

Edit: I found the link to the article.

Edited June 20, 2014 by supernovablackholes

[Mordred]

This particular model of universe inside a black hole I am familiar with I spent some time studying his model. Including some professional peer reviews of the problems associated against the model as being viable.

 

Poplowskii's spin and torsion model (universe inside a blackhole/whitehole) suffers primarily in how it deals with the early large scale structure formation if I recall correctly. Unfortunately I can't find the paper on that (I tried finding it on one of my earlier replies)

Alright I tried following this topic and quite frankly I haven't seen one decent answer. Instead I've read numerous arguments lol. However being that I am new here I will address the original question.

 

The universe inside a whitehole/blackhole is invalid, it was a model proposal by Poplowskii. The model uses spin and torsion to try to account for a homogeneous and isotropic universe, however it fails to account for early large scale structure formation. However that doesn't stop him from working on it lol...

http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/publications.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587

 

Not too many professional cosmologists think too highly of his work. Although his metrics are kind of interesting. I read tons of cosmology articles and I can say with confidence that his work is rarely cited.

 

-particularly since his models is also a counter to inflation models. Inflation has too strong of supportive evidence, particulary since they may have found evidence of gravity waves in the CMB. The planck papers also support inflation models with a higher observation agreement towards the single scalar models with low kinetic term. The best fit to observations is the LambdaCDM model. Which is essentially the hot big bang model with cold(non relativistic) dark matter. The hot big bang beginning does not describe the beginning of the universe, it only describes a hot dense state from 10^-42 sec forward. The early timeline is based on our understanding of symmetry breaking temperature correlations of particle physics. Essentially when a particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium. Prior to that time our knowledge of physics breaks down.

 

Anyways another key note on blackholes, they do not feed at consistent rates, so if we were inside one. Shouldn't we also measure varying energy-density distributions in the CMB or within the IGM (Intergalactic medium)? We don't overall the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (Homogeneous no preferred location)(isotropic no preferred direction). This is also why the big bang is not the result of some explosion from some infinitely dense god particle. Multimedia loves to show that analogy lol. The misiscule point described is the start of our lightcone (region of shared causality) In simpler words our observable universe. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinte. We have no means of measuring beyond the cosmic event horizon, so we make no statements about that region, other than we have no reason to think it will be any different than our observable.

 

here is some of the other reasons, Ones I didn't mention here is that Popowskii's model is a rotating universe and even an extremely slow rotation cannot homogeneous and isotropic. To the best of our measurements our universe shows no indication of a rotation. (a rotation would mean a preferred direction and location (center of rotation).

 

However he does continually try to address the problems in his model, and its been a while since I last looked at it. He may or may not have solutions to those problems I mentioned. I do know from extensive reading of cosmology papers that the universe as a result of a BH is not commonly accepted.

 

Science is wonderful that way (until a model is proven wrong and is viable, then any any viable model is considered possible)

 

overall though the difficulty of explaining how a universe resulting from a BH is extremely challenging, in regards to our universe not having a preferred location and direction. Our universe is extremely homogeneous and isotropic (Poplowskii's earlier papers didn't sufficiently cover this problem, no idea if his later works does)(I should note some of the metrics in his papers is good learning, he makes use of the Godel universe metrics and its a good example)

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0106/0106070.pdf

 

(keep in mind the Godel universe is simply a model, models like this are sometimes referred to as toy universes,)

Edited June 20, 2014 by Mordred