Starship Asterisk*

As goes the idea of all black holes possibly being the gateway’s / beginning point’s of another universe whereas material inside it may be being ejected much like what we would call the big bang that happened in our own universe.
This was just one of the many, many possibilities put forth on the latest “ Through the wormhole “ TV show last week
Reply if you like but I didn’t post this as a start to a thread, I just wanted to say that I find this idea fascinating.

THX1138 wrote:As goes the idea of all black holes possibly being the gateway’s / beginning point’s of another universe whereas material inside it may be being ejected much like what we would call the big bang that happened in our own universe.
This was just one of the many, many possibilities put forth on the latest “ Through the wormhole “ TV show last week
Reply if you like but I didn’t post this as a start to a thread, I just wanted to say that I find this idea fascinating.

Unfortunately, it's an idea with about as much scientific evidence as the suggestion that the Universe is sitting on an infinite stack of turtles...

Chris Peterson wrote: Unfortunately, it's an idea with about as much scientific evidence as the suggestion that the Universe is sitting on an infinite stack of turtles...

I watched a documentary on the science channel , Through the Wormhole, I believe, in which a theoretical physicist or cosmologist, I'm not sure which, said that there are almost infinite possibilities of anything occurring in the universe due to it's size. That includes the possibility of another you existing out there somewhere. I'm guessing it follows the same logic as the reason that we are here as well. All the conditions have to be perfect for us to even exist. Its not surprising that we are here because the odds dictate it. The same documentary theorized that there are also an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. So, using that same logic, must there also be a universe out there that IS sitting on an infinite stack of turtles? There must also be another baseball team named the New York Yankees out there as well! Doesn't that seem ludicrous? It seems to me that scientists use the "odds" theory, for lack of a better term, to explain away a lot of things. What do you think?

stephen63 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Unfortunately, it's an idea with about as much scientific evidence as the suggestion that the Universe is sitting on an infinite stack of turtles...

I watched a documentary on the science channel , Through the Wormhole, I believe, in which a theoretical physicist or cosmologist, I'm not sure which, said that there are almost infinite possibilities of anything occurring in the universe due to it's size. That includes the possibility of another you existing out there somewhere. I'm guessing it follows the same logic as the reason that we are here as well. All the conditions have to be perfect for us to even exist. Its not surprising that we are here because the odds dictate it. The same documentary theorized that there are also an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. So, using that same logic, must there also be a universe out there that IS sitting on an infinite stack of turtles? There must also be another baseball team named the New York Yankees out there as well! Doesn't that seem ludicrous? It seems to me that scientists use the "odds" theory, for lack of a better term, to explain away a lot of things. What do you think?

Well, given a sufficiently infinite number of universes, maybe even the universe sitting on an infinite stack of turtles will come to pass.

Ann

THX1138 wrote:As goes the idea of all black holes possibly being the gateway’s / beginning point’s of another universe whereas material inside it may be being ejected much like what we would call the big bang that happened in our own universe.
This was just one of the many, many possibilities put forth on the latest “ Through the wormhole “ TV show last week
Reply if you like but I didn’t post this as a start to a thread, I just wanted to say that I find this idea fascinating.

From a strict mathematical point of view, the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity, which describes a black hole, also describes a white hole. All particles inside the white hole would be ejected, similar to a black where nothing can escape once past the event horizon. Furthermore, if you investigate the Kerr solution mathematically, which describes a rotating black hole, you indeed find the possibility to enter the rotating black hole and emerge in another flat spacetime region (aka "other universe").

However, there are several points to keep in mind: first, the black hole solutions are vacuum solutions, that is, they don't contain any matter. All black holes we know were very likely formed by collapsing matter, and this changes the interior of the black hole (very likely) entirely, and with that goes the "other universe". Second, we have strong evidence for the existence for black holes, but none whatsoever for white holes.

Wormholes are a valid solution of general relativity as well. They were inspired by Carl Sagan's book "Contact". But they require "exotic matter" to keep it open long enough for a human to pass through. Such exotic matter would have a negative energy density, and no substance with this property is known.

So, white holes and wormholes are valid solutions of general relativity, but I strongly doubt they ever exist. Nonetheless, they are fun to think about and are great for Science-fiction!

stephen63 wrote: The same documentary theorized that there are also an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. So, using that same logic, must there also be a universe out there that IS sitting on an infinite stack of turtles? [...] Doesn't that seem ludicrous? It seems to me that scientists use the "odds" theory, for lack of a better term, to explain away a lot of things. What do you think?

IMHO, calling this talk about other universes with different laws of physics "theorizing" is giving it too much credit. There is no scientific reason to believe it (neither a worked out theory nor experimental evidence). As you say, some scientists use it to "explain" everything away with this odd(s) theory. When I hear proponents of the multiverse talk, it sounds to me like they effectively just give up. Because if everything is just random chance, why bother trying to understand it?

stephen63 wrote:I watched a documentary on the science channel , Through the Wormhole, I believe, in which a theoretical physicist or cosmologist, I'm not sure which, said that there are almost infinite possibilities of anything occurring in the universe due to it's size. That includes the possibility of another you existing out there somewhere.

Well, the thing is, nobody knows the size of the Universe. But there's not much to suggest that it's large enough to allow for "almost infinite possibilities" (whatever that means!). You can do the math for the possibility of two human-sized organisms having identical structures, and it would require a much larger universe than most physicists believe we have.

I'm guessing it follows the same logic as the reason that we are here as well. All the conditions have to be perfect for us to even exist. Its not surprising that we are here because the odds dictate it.

No. We're here because if we weren't, we wouldn't be. Nothing to do with odds.

The same documentary theorized that there are also an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics.

At best, they hypothesized this. And it is completely speculative, with virtually no actual science arguing for (or against) it.

So, using that same logic, must there also be a universe out there that IS sitting on an infinite stack of turtles? There must also be another baseball team named the New York Yankees out there as well! Doesn't that seem ludicrous? It seems to me that scientists use the "odds" theory, for lack of a better term, to explain away a lot of things. What do you think?

I think there is no science in this science. The documentary has entertainment value, not education value.

Chris Peterson wrote: No. We're here because if we weren't, we wouldn't be. Nothing to do with odds.

So, I take it that you're not a fan of the Drake Equation.

stephen63 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No. We're here because if we weren't, we wouldn't be. Nothing to do with odds.

So, I take it that you're not a fan of the Drake Equation.

Why do you say that? The equation seems to me perfectly valid, although perhaps not complete. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Universe is capable of supporting life.

Chris Peterson wrote:

stephen63 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No. We're here because if we weren't, we wouldn't be. Nothing to do with odds.

So, I take it that you're not a fan of the Drake Equation.

Why do you say that? The equation seems to me perfectly valid, although perhaps not complete. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Universe is capable of supporting life.

Because you disagreed with my statement that the odds dictate an advanced civilization(us, for example) would exist in the universe. Sure, it happens to be us because that's the only civilization we know of that's self aware. The fact that we're here does support the odds! I never said it had anything to do with the processes involved in creating life. The Drake Equation is nothing more than speculation about how many other communicative civilizations exist in the Milky Way. Wouldn't we be included in that number? N=1. I'm surprised that you would support the Drake Equation because it is so wildly speculative.

stephen63 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Why do you say that? The equation seems to me perfectly valid, although perhaps not complete. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Universe is capable of supporting life.

Because you disagreed with my statement that the odds dictate an advanced civilization(us, for example) would exist in the universe.

I simply misunderstood your comment to imply that nearly infinite possibilities is why we are here.

The fact that we're here does support the odds!

I wouldn't say that. "Odds" is meaningless with a sample of one. The only thing our existence does is demonstrate that the Universe is capable of producing life.

I'm surprised that you would support the Drake Equation because it is so wildly speculative.

What is speculative about the Drake Equation? The values we choose to assign are mostly speculative, but the equation itself is a simple expression of logic.

The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but intended as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank, West Virginia.-Wiki

Besides illuminating the factors involved in such a search, the Drake Equation is a simple, effective tool for stimulating intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for making us realize how much we are a part of that universe.-SETI Institute
http://www.setileague.org/askdr/drake.htm

I would consider that to be speculative!

THX1138 wrote:...I didn’t post this as a start to a thread...

I think you've failed in your non-objective.

stephen63 wrote:The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but intended as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank, West Virginia.-Wiki

Besides illuminating the factors involved in such a search, the Drake Equation is a simple, effective tool for stimulating intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for making us realize how much we are a part of that universe.-SETI Institute
http://www.setileague.org/askdr/drake.htm

I would consider that to be speculative!

Nope, not me. At least, I don't see the equation as particularly speculative. It's just a list of mostly obvious parameters. The speculation is associated with the value of the parameters. In some cases, we now have pretty good reasoning to assign reasonable values. Others remain little more than pure guesses.

It may stimulate speculative reasoning, but that is a very different kind of "speculative" than things like alternate universes and other versions of you or me.

Chris Peterson wrote: It may stimulate speculative reasoning, but that is a very different kind of "speculative" than things like alternate universes and other versions of you or me.

I agree. That's why I said the idea was ludicrous.

LUDICROUS.
Reminds me of licorice. You chew and chew and chew and chew and it tastes good, but there's just not much there. It mostly keeps your mouth employed.
I find it to be that way with most things. But i do like strawberry licorice. I just don't have it very often.

LUDICROUS

Ludicrous speed ! What's the matter Colonel Sanders, chicken

I love the idea of white holes spawning new universes however, if the matter being ejected into the new universe (if it were the case the white hole theory was correct) is governed by the same rules of physics as our own, as it would undoubtedly be as it is the same matter in an empty vaccuum. then a lot of universes would be the same.

theres a lot to be said for it though. we find it hard to understand how matter travelled everywhere instantaneously all at once since this would involve matter travelling faster than the speed of light. however, if you get an a4 piece of paper and draw a thouand or so random dots on it (simulating white holes) then a subsequent circle around it simulating the matter ejected and call that paper our universe then it explains how matter travelled so far so quickly becaue it never travelled at all, it was leaked into our universe through a whitehole.

Jus sayin!!

Paul

wonderboy wrote:... we find it hard to understand how matter travelled everywhere instantaneously all at once since this would involve matter travelling faster than the speed of light.

Where does that idea come from? There's no part of modern cosmological theory which says that such a thing happened. When space expands, the matter in it does not "travel" in the usual sense. When you blow up a dot-covered balloon, do the dots travel? No, yet they are farther apart afterwards. (For this analogy to be illustrative, you have to ignore the air/space inside the balloon; we're only talking about its surface.)

Rob

rstevenson wrote:

wonderboy wrote:... we find it hard to understand how matter travelled everywhere instantaneously all at once since this would involve matter travelling faster than the speed of light.

Where does that idea come from? There's no part of modern cosmological theory which says that such a thing happened. When space expands, the matter in it does not "travel" in the usual sense. When you blow up a dot-covered balloon, do the dots travel? No, yet they are farther apart afterwards. (For this analogy to be illustrative, you have to ignore the air/space inside the balloon; we're only talking about its surface.)

Actually, in this analogy the interior of the balloon represents previous epochs. The surface of the balloon is moving away from the center of the balloon along the time dimension. So if the expansion rate changes, it is actually the rate time flows that is changing (although what you measure that against is an interesting question!) I'm not aware of any theory that places limitations on how "fast" time can move. Thus, we can have something like the Inflationary period or long term changes in universal expansion.

ive read things on here some places and also viewed it in documentaries a bit more noteworthy than through the wormhole. if expansion happened as quickly as they say then the rate at which the universe expanded had to be faster than the speed of light. since light is the universal speed limit it is hard to imagine that in a very short period of time our universe become so large we cant tell if it is infinate or not.

also it has been proved that expansion is speeding up, thus we have what we call the observable universe, named so as the rest is unobservable due to the fact that the light travelling to us will never reach us as we are travelling away from it quicker than its coming towards us.

in my example i say that light cannot reach is in the observable universe not because we are travelling away from it but because it has been ejected into our universe at a point at which it would never reach us.

put a pile of dirt in a bath, then pour a watering can of water over it and if done precise enough the mud will all spread out equally in all directions at the same speed "away from each other" then multiply it by adding more piles and water. the water represents the force of the black holes ejection and the mud represents the matter coming into the new universe. crude, but effective in my humble opinion, of explaining a white hole theory.

If i eat into it, i dont believe one white hole wuld have created our universe, but multiple.

wonderboy wrote:ive read things on here some places and also viewed it in documentaries a bit more noteworthy than through the wormhole. if expansion happened as quickly as they say then the rate at which the universe expanded had to be faster than the speed of light. since light is the universal speed limit it is hard to imagine that in a very short period of time our universe become so large we cant tell if it is infinate or not.

This is the point you are not understanding correctly. There is no physical law that prevents objects from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other. Neither is apparent velocity created by the expansion of space between two objects the same as the actual velocity resulting from a change in force on one or both of those objects. Space is currently expanding uniformly, which means there are objects moving apart at greater than the speed of light. Indeed, that is what defines the boundaries of our (or any) observable universe.

@ wonderboy Some good reading material can be had on what i believe your talking here on the thread Dark Flow, a thread you yourself have added comments to. I've read it a number of times and then some more just trying to get myself to understand it. In fact I think I'm going to read it again myself right now.








Today i spent my entire check on women, beer and my scooter. The rest i just wasted

I thought dark flow was already discounted as a possibility by more accurate measurements? In any case, I also don't think it has anything to do with white holes.