Do we live in a black hole?

[Travis Hallet]

A black hole can be made of an infinite amount of matter. So is it possible we live in a black hole? I think we might.

 

The universe as we know it is constantly expanding. Or is it just a trick the distortion of space plays on our eyes? We could have fallen inside a black hole a long time ago. Way before the sun was even made. And here we are now, hurling around this gigantic black hole bigger than any super massive black hole recorded. As we gradually get closer to the center then space stretch's Exponentially. Causing the illusion we are getting farther from everything.

 

If this were true then there. Could be millions of universes in a multiverse. What are your thoughts on this?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Travis Hallet

[ajb]

Of a sort. We have our own horizons which loosely give the distance from which we could possibly retrieve information. They set the scale of the cosmos. There are various ways to define these horizons, google 'cosmological horizon'.

[Mordred]

distance measures, of expansion isn't the only piece of evidence.

 

Thermodynamics is also a key piece.

 

Let's use your example if we were moving toward some BH of unimaginable portion, other matter would also be moving the same. As that matter starts to compress the ideal gas laws tells us the temperature of the universe should increase.

 

However expansion is an increase in volume this the temperature is dropping. From CMB roughly 3000 Kelvin to now at roughly 2.7 Kelvin.

 

This can only occur via a change (increase in volume)

Measurements also show there is no preferred direction or location to how bodies move due to expansion. Your idea has both.

[Travis Hallet]

But I've always thought as something gets more dense the temperature decreases. Am I wrong?

[Mordred]

PV=nRT ideal gas law

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

 

higher energy density via smaller volume means higher pressure and temperature.

Here is two handy articles.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

First is a full textbook. The second covers particle interactions and temperature using the Bose-Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics. In which the second law of thermodynamics can be written in the form.

 

[latex]TdS=d\mu+PdV[/latex]

 

[latex] \mu=\rho V[/latex]

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Genecks]

If we lived in a black hole, would that make our physics any different?

[Mordred]

Black holes typically rotate, it's rotation would impart upon a universe inside its EH. Also they feed upon material at an inconsistent rate,(available matter). This alters the amount of incoming energy as well as spin rates.

 

The universe inside a BH has been proposed in a few forms. BH inside a white hole included. The problem with the idea is the above as well as maintaining the cosmological principle. A homogeneous and isotropic universe. (No preferred direction or location).

 

This principle is extremely tested via measurement data in particular WMAP and Planck datasets.

 

Prior to those datasets is when the universe inside a BH models were strongest. At least the ones I am familiar with.

 

It's not so much a change in physics as a measurement agreement problem. Any rotating universe has a preferred location and direction.

 

Poplowskii used to support a spin and torsion model (inside the EH.). I don't know if he's still pursuing this idea since Planck.

[Travis Hallet]

But everywhere you look you see that type of environment in space on different scales. Such as the moon around the earth, planets around a star, stars around a galaxy. May be the reason we don't see a preferred location and direction is because we are in a BH. You know like the way the sky seems to revolve around earth. We have proven that when space is bent it causes distortion in light. But this would mean if we looked toward the event horizon things would seem closer together. And if we looked toward the black hole things would seem farther apart right? (Assuming there is an equal distribution of matter thought the BH)

[Mordred]

Not when you look at scales of 100 Mpc and above. The universe becomes extremely homogeneous and isotropic.

 

What your describing is localized gravitational variances covered under the Einstein field equations..

 

In particular the stress energy tensor to pressure relations due to gravity.

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^\mu U^\nu+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

Here is two articles I wrote with some help

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

The second page of the last article covers distance measures in the FLRW metric which includes the ideal gas laws.

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

If you look at the CMB images those variations in temperature is 1/1000th

Of a degree variation. It that scale it is incredibly homogeneous and isotropic.

The FLRW metric translates from the above into the form

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex]

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

Granted you need the full Einstein field equation (I didn't include the curvature and ricci tensors) as well as the ideal gas equations.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Travis Hallet]

But I thought gravity was an infinite stretching force. In your article you say there are no forces pushing matter. If there are no forces pushing matter and we are not inside of a BH everything will collapse in the opposite accelerating speed.

 

And if there were such thing as a big bang then our universe would look like a hollow ball from the big picture. Or there would be a region in space that is empty approximately where the big bang originated. Just like a grenade. After an explosion you can find frags from the grenade a certain radial distance from the origin of the explosion. But the closer you get the less frags you will find until there are none toward the center.

[Mordred]

The strength of gravity falls off as a function of radius. Look at universal gravitational law. It's strength the further away decreases over distance.

 

The big bang isn't an explosion. It is a hot dense state at 10^-29 seconds forward. Inflation is a rapid expansion of space. Not an explosion.

 

You might want to read these articles covering common big bang misconceptions.

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

By the way +1 you are actually studying. Feel free to ask any questions on the material I'm presenting.

 

 

Of particular importance is the balloon analogy. The first two links cover that. (Keep in mind they are analogies in how every object moves from each other equally with no change in angles only)

You cannot get the same effect from an explosion.

(PS as to gravity the article isn't completely accurate all forms of energy density can cause gravity, I tried to keep the articles as simple as possible. The cosmological constant has in terms of the metrics only...anti gravity like metrics. But it is NOT anti gravity.). I left that part out to avoid confusion.

(Lol Brian Powell and I had a discussion on the preferred descriptive, we decided in favor of least confusion. He has a PH.D in Philosophies of Cosmology. Also the author of the second link. Coincidentally he also visits forums)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Travis Hallet]

So if space were made of fabric you are saying more and more pieces of fabric are created exponentially. Almost like space is reproducing. That doesn't make sense to me that space is becoming greater. I mean how is a space-time fabric made?

 

And if space-time fabric were not created then as the universe expanded gravitational pull of all objects would become weaker.

[Mordred]

No space is not made of fabric.

 

Space is geometric volume. That volume contains the standard model particles.

 

How particles interact is described by differential geometry relations.

 

Those relations is what is called curvature of space time.

 

Let's try this. Gravity affects mass. Mass is resistance to inertia.

 

Gravity cannot affect volume as volume has no mass, it affects the standard model particle that reside in space.

Space time is any geometric model that includes space with time as a vector component.

 

Space time curvature is a geometric relation of gravities influential strength upon particles at a given radius and location.

In expansion it is simply a change in volume. No new energy/particles is created to change the volume.

This would violate the conservation of energy laws

Hint think of how the universe expands or contracts as an ideal gas.

The Einstein field equations also uses the ideal gas laws.

Look at the equations of state in cosmology.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

Edit. GR is a coordinate system metric, space time curvature can also be accurately described as a coordinate influence upon mass within space time.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Travis Hallet]

So wouldn't the increase in volume of the universe cause the particles to become further apart causing less particles to effect ergo causing less gravity?

[Mordred]

Correct 100% this is where we hit the matter dominant era into the lambda (cosmological constant era). Roughly universe age 7.3 billion years age

 

Cosmology chronology follows three key eras .

 

Radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant.

 

Key note all eras has expansion, just different rates. During the matter dominant expansion was slowing down. However due to the increase in volume the cosmological constant was able to overcome the force of gravity becoming the lambda dominant era we see today.

 

In terms of thermodynamics having a negative pressure term isn't the dilemma. The dilemma in the cosmological constant is "why is it constant?" And why is it so close to zero.

 

Currently the best hypothesis has to do with SO(10) Higgs field metrics. At least according to my extensive research into the cosmological constant problem. Last 10 years lol. I never agreed with quintessence, I also firmly believe expansion and inflation can be described via particle physics and the ideal gas laws without the need for exotic virtual particles such as the curvaton and inflaton.

 

Granted there are still 70+ observable to accurate inflation models.

 

I spent years studying expansion, inflation is simply one aspect of the same. All of Cosmology breaks down into particle physics and how the Four forces, gravity, electrodynamics,weak and strong force interacts.

 

Those interactions are described via the ideal gas laws. (Side note you can describe any solid as well via those laws)

 

Particle physics of course introduces New interaction laws. Conservation of baryons,leptons,color,flavor,isospin,charge,etc.

 

All in all gravity is merely one of four primary forces. Coincidentally the weakest. (Another mystery)

Here is some of my favourite articles

GUT theories

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta

 

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Travis Hallet]

Well I must say its an honor to be having this conversation with someone with so much experience on the topic. I can barley find anyone to even listen to what I say about cosmology and physics. I can see why so many people get confused about the big bang its a complex theory.

 

And if it is the expansion of space then i think the real dilemma is what initiated the expansion.

 

And I have another question why werent all the mater and antimater particles wiped out before the expansion even started?

 

Also I don't think why gravity is so weak is a mystery anymore. We cracked that one lol.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Travis Hallet

[Mordred]

The last question delves into another mystery. Baryogenises and subsequently leptogenesis. Once again the hope lies in the left hand and right hand reactions of the SO(10). Which incorporates Patti Salam. Well done we covered a huge volume of subjects albeit briefly my hope is you study each in greater detail. (As I have). Feel free to ask for clarity and I recommend starting new threads on the particular aspects on each subject matter.

 

Nice discussing physics with someone truly willing to learn. WELL DONE.

+1 reputation

If you can afford textbooks on cosmology I recommend

 

Introductory to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden.

 

Modern Cosmology 2nd edition by Scott Dodelson.

 

Introductory to particle physics via Griffith. (All his books are excellent)

(Signature on my posts has numerous articles, including a good expansion redshift calculator)