Universal creation, and rebirth speculation

[TJ McCaustland]

Hello, I would like to apologize to everyone who read the "McCaustland Theory" it was poorly explained, and very unorganized. This is my second attempt to explain my own personal hypothesis on the universe. First of all I do believe that black holes are actually how the universe first began, this is due to the phenomena known as hawking radiation. This explains why singularities less than a nanometer across dissipate (Correct on measurement if necessary). Now this I believe is due to another still highly hypothetical phenomena I like to call ultra-high velocity ejection. In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity many times the speed of light. This explains hawking radiation, and the big bang. Now it is widely believed that dark matter pushes matter away from matter, and is the reason why the galaxies are speeding away from us rapidly. I personally believe that dark energy dissipates, and when all dark energy dissipates we get another big bang, the reason why? well as I explained earlier hawking radiation causes tiny black holes to dissipate, and therefore I conclude that a similar thing happens with extremely large ones. Now think back to the dark energy speculation, gravity would take over right? well all that matter would come to form a gigantic black hole with nothing stopping gravity, and the hawking radiation from that, not to mention the ultra-high-velocity ejection hypothesis would cause it to explode after receding to become incredibly small mass. a supernova on ultra steroids basically this would also theoretically create more dark energy. If you would bear with me, this also explains revelation, how the world is recreated.

 

Please, do not for any reason jump onto the anti-Religion bandwagon, I understand, and respect that we all have our own beliefs, please do the same.

 

TJ McCaustland

 

P.S. Think of light like a barrier, once it's hit it gets pushed backwards, not simply a speed limit to be obeyed.

Edited October 8, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[Strange]

First of all I do believe that black holes are actually how the universe first began, this is due to the phenomena known as hawking radiation. This explains why singularities less than a nanometer across dissipate (Correct on measurement if necessary).

 

Actually, all black holes lose mass through Hawking radiation. Although any realistic size black hole will always gain more mass by material falling in.

 

And when you say "singularities less than a nanometer across" you actually mean "event horizons". Singularities are, by definition, zero sized. (And probably don't exist.)

 

In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity several times the speed of light.

 

There are very good reasons to think that:

a) Nothing can travel faster than light

b) Matter cannot leave a black hole, whatever its speed.

 

This explains hawking radiation

 

We already have an explanation for Hawking radiation. Devised by someone called Hawking, by a remarkable coincidence.

 

,and the big bang.

 

Your description so far suggests you are thinking of the big bang as some sort of explosion. It isn't.

 

Also, the energy released from a black hole dissipated due to Hawking radiation can be no more than the mass that fell into it. As you are talking about a very small black hole, you will create a really teeny little bang.

 

Now it is widely believed that dark matter pushes matter away from matter

 

It is widely believed that dark matter attracts matter in the same way as normal matter.

 

, and is the reason why the galaxies are speeding away from us rapidly

 

Ah, perhaps you are thinking of dark energy?

 

This is not the reason that galaxies are speeding away from us (actually, they are speeding away from each other, not just us). It is proposed for an explanation of the apparent acceleration of that expansion.

 

You have so many basic errors, I gave up reading at this point.

 

Conclusion? Back to school.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Strange

[imatfaal]

Hello, I would like to apologize to everyone who read the "McCaustland Theory" it was poorly explained, and very unorganized. This is my second attempt to explain my own personal hypothesis on the universe. First of all I do believe that black holes are actually how the universe first began, this is due to the phenomena known as hawking radiation.

 

Firstly, lets be clear that Hawking radiation is hypothetical - had never been measured and will not be able to be observed in the foreseeable future.

 

 

This explains why singularities less than a nanometer across dissipate (Correct on measurement if necessary). Now this I believe is due to another still highly hypothetical phenomena I like to call ultra-high velocity ejection. In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity several times the speed of light. This explains hawking radiation, and the big bang.

 

There is very little theoretical basis for believing in a physical singularity within a black hole. Sure GR would predict it - but that is generally taken as a reason to impose a limit on the applicability of GR rather than to espouse the reality of a physical singularity; most theoreticians believe that this scenario demonstrates the need for a quantum theory of gravity.

 

 

In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity several times the speed of light. This explains hawking radiation, and the big bang. Now it is widely believed that dark matter pushes matter away from matter, and is the reason why the galaxies are speeding away from us rapidly.

 

Nope that would be dark energy

 

 

I personally believe that dark matter dissipates, and when all dark matter dissipates we get another big bang, the reason why? well as I explained earlier hawking radiation causes tiny black holes to dissipate, and therefore I conclude that a similar thing happens with extremely large ones. Now think back to the dark matter speculation, gravity would take over right? well all that matter would come to form a gigantic black hole with nothing stopping gravity, and the hawking radiation from that, not to mention the ultra-high-velocity ejection hypothesis would cause it to explode after receding to become incredibly small mass. a supernova on ultra steroids basically. If you would bear with me, this also explains revelation, how the world is recreated.

 

This doesnt make sense with the usual definition of dark matter

 

 

Please, do not for any reason jump onto the anti-Religion bandwagon, I understand, and respect that we all have our own beliefs, please do the same.

 

TJ McCaustland

 

 

No jumping on an anti-religion bandwagon (no need to I have been riding shotgun for as long as I remember) - just querying a few physical assertions.

 

/edit Again cross-posted with Strange. Note to self - learn to type faster, if fails learn to think faster

[ajb]

And when you say "singularities less than a nanometer across" you actually mean "event horizons". Singularities are, by definition, zero sized. (And probably don't exist.)

Maybe I am being a bit pedantic, but the Schwarzschild black hole does indeed have a point singularity, while rotating black holes have ring singularities. Anyway, this does not really change the fact that the OP is rather full of holes!

[TJ McCaustland]

Well thanks for taking the time to read my wild hypothesis, and please continue to poke holes in it, it's required for each hypothesis to grow into a theory. Just to make a point, with all of this taken into consideration I would be applying very special circumstances to many of these points.

[Strange]

Maybe I am being a bit pedantic, but the Schwarzschild black hole does indeed have a point singularity, while rotating black holes have ring singularities. Anyway, this does not really change the fact that the OP is rather full of holes!

 

Certainly they exist in these models. Whether they have any physical reality (when, for example, we have a theory of quantum gravity) is less clear.

[TJ McCaustland]

BTW if this ever gets off the ground and turns into a theory I will credit all of you because you help to formulate the theory by pointing out stuff. So thanks.

And since current Quantum mechanics is a little.... sparse to say. I do simply assume certain things. That's why this in speculation and not quantum physics. This is where every theory should start, and eventually graduate to quantum mechanics when its ready. BTW if you think this is bad check out the McCaustland theory, my biggest mistake. That thing was a result of a late night with too much root beer, and probably too many videogame hours, which caused my brain to spasm out like a fish on land....

Well this speculation should graduate to quantum mechanics eventually, not every theory.

Speculation

Not theory

[Mordred]

lets clarify a few details on Hawking's radiation, first off Hawking's radiation occurs outside the event horizon not within it When the particle pairs form the negative particle falls into the BH causing a loss of mass, the positive particle escapes, Secondly Hawking's radiation only occurs if the blackbody temperature of the universe is lower than the blackbody temperature of the BH. Otherwise the BH absorbs the heat from the surrounding universe and gains energy-mass. Now the other problem is that if BH's were creating universes those universes would not be homogeneous and isotropic, there would be preferred directions and locations involved. Observations do not support and anistropic and inhomogeneous universe

 

here is a handy article on BH's and the various processes involved

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

 

wiki isn't the greatest on the subject however it does support this in its reference 11

 

"A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#cite_note-kumar2012-11

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mordred

[TJ McCaustland]

Well for one doesn't Steven Hawking's theory state that the universe was created as a result of a black hole explosion?

Because if it does that means that this particular part of the theory has a much better chance of being correct.

Hello, I would like to apologize to everyone who read the "McCaustland Theory" it was poorly explained, and very unorganized. This is my second attempt to explain my own personal hypothesis on the universe. First of all I do believe that black holes are actually how the universe first began, this is due to the phenomena known as hawking radiation. This explains why singularities less than a nanometer across dissipate (Correct on measurement if necessary). Now this I believe is due to another still highly hypothetical phenomena I like to call ultra-high velocity ejection. In the hypothesis of ultra-high velocity ejection I believe that when matter reaches the singularity inside the black hole it is ejected at a velocity many times the speed of light. This explains hawking radiation, and the big bang. Now it is widely believed that dark matter pushes matter away from matter, and is the reason why the galaxies are speeding away from us rapidly. I personally believe that dark energy dissipates, and when all dark energy dissipates we get another big bang, the reason why? well as I explained earlier hawking radiation causes tiny black holes to dissipate, and therefore I conclude that a similar thing happens with extremely large ones. Now think back to the dark energy speculation, gravity would take over right? well all that matter would come to form a gigantic black hole with nothing stopping gravity, and the hawking radiation from that, not to mention the ultra-high-velocity ejection hypothesis would cause it to explode after receding to become incredibly small mass. a supernova on ultra steroids basically this would also theoretically create more dark energy. If you would bear with me, this also explains revelation, how the world is recreated.

 

Please, do not for any reason jump onto the anti-Religion bandwagon, I understand, and respect that we all have our own beliefs, please do the same.

 

TJ McCaustland

 

P.S. Think of light like a barrier, once it's hit it gets pushed backwards, not simply a speed limit to be obeyed.

Ughhhh..... Dark energy not dark Matter

Soooo many mistakes in editing...

[Strange]

Well for one doesn't Steven Hawking's theory state that the universe was created as a result of a black hole explosion?

 

I don't think so. His hypothesis is that the universe was created by quantum fluctuations in a false vacuum. Or something. As there is no real evidence the universe was created, it is all a bit moot.

 

You might be thinking of Nikodem Popławski

http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

[fiveworlds]

fish on land....

 

You mean Mangrove Rivulus? Known to spend upwards of two months out of water. Flopping around climbing trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove_rivulus

Edited October 9, 2014 by fiveworlds

[ajb]

Well for one doesn't Steven Hawking's theory state that the universe was created as a result of a black hole explosion?

Hawking's calculation of the radiation emitted from a black hole has nothing, directly anyway, to the expansion of the Universe.

 

You may be confusing this with the famous Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which say that under some physical assumptions singularities are unavoidable in classical general relativity. Prior to their results is was thought that singularities required lot of symmetry, as in the case of non-rotating spherical black holes. Anyway, Hawking and Penrose applied their ideas about black hole formation in 'reverse' to the expansion of the Universe. The conclusion is that classically the Universe was singular in the past. Note that this is all classical general relativity.

[Mordred]

Explosion is the wrong way of thinking of expansion and inflation, the term explosion implies a preferred direction and location. Inflation and expansion measurements show no preferred location or direction.. This is referred to as the cosmological principle. Our universe is homogeneous and isotropic, (no preferred location or direction) . Expansion is sometimes referred to as an explosion in space, however its important to recognize it as a rapid expansion in all directions and locations, not from an original point like object. We do not know how big the universe was at 10^-43 seconds, it could have been finite or infinite.

[hoola]

any attempt to explain why the universe exists, must include reasoning as to how an initializing entity (BB?) could have come to exist first.

[TJ McCaustland]

One particular explanation for the creation of the universe could possibly be because of nothing itself, because nothingness cannot exist, there is always something, whether it be energy, matter, or even space itself, is up to you, a universe of nothing cannot exist itself.

[ajb]

One particular explanation for the creation of the universe could possibly be because of nothing itself, because nothingness cannot exist, there is always something, whether it be energy, matter, or even space itself, is up to you, a universe of nothing cannot exist itself.

That is very philosophical rather than scientific.

 

And as an aside, energy is not 'something', it is a property of a physical configuration.

[TJ McCaustland]

Indeed but the universe itself is highly philosophical because we do not know if we are real or not real, computer game or living being, it is the factor that we know as perception that allows us to believe that we are indeed real, though we may be just a snowglobe on a mantle.

You mean Mangrove Rivulus? Known to spend upwards of two months out of water. Flopping around climbing trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove_rivulus

Good one.

[ajb]

Indeed but the universe itself is highly philosophical because we do not know if we are real or not real, computer game or living being, it is the factor that we know as perception that allows us to believe that we are indeed real, though we may be just a snowglobe on a mantle.

 

If we cannot test these ideas (they first need to be defined carefully) then it is not science. If we can never know that we are in a computer game then does this computer game actually exist? Who/what wrote the code and made the computer? And so on...

 

It is better to stick to science and use a little philosophy to guide you, otherwise you will be off on a tangent trying to discuss things that you can offer no proof of.

[TJ McCaustland]

It is not for us to answer the question of who, but to ask it, I am no philosopher but I do like to think.

[ajb]

It is not for us to answer the question of who, but to ask it, I am no philosopher but I do like to think.

I am not sure that asking questions that have no answer is the best way to go. That really is in the realms of philosophy! Anyway, we digress.

 

Do you understand my point that energy is not really 'something'? It is a property of a physical configuration, there is no 'pure energy'.

[TJ McCaustland]

Yes of course, but any physical configuration has an effect on the matter surrounding it because it causes change, and because the universe is relative.

[Endy0816]

What is the Universe relative to?

[TJ McCaustland]

The universe is relative to everything because it is infinite, Anything that has mass or energy affects the universe in diverse and interesting ways.

[Endy0816]

You are comparing it to itself which really isn't a comparison at all.

[TJ McCaustland]

That is because there is nothing else to compare it to. The reason? Well we live in a universe not a multiverse.