Not Parallel Universes, Nested Universes

[grey_lightnin]

I am a physics junkie. I have recently been looking into parallel universe theories, and find them intriguing. While the science behind the multiverse theory is sound, I believe that parallel universe theories as proposed can be expounded upon to give a more plausible model. This requires us to look at 2 seemingly disassociated studies.
First let’s look at multiverse theories.
Multiverse theories arose from a need to further explain universe expansion. The big bang model leaves a lot of questions regarding expansion unanswered. Although it seems to fit the general idea of our expanding universe, the regularity of expansion does not fit with a nothing to everything event
It is now commonly accepted that we exist in a multiverse of parallel universes rather than a singular universe. The beginning of our universe and the subsequent expansion are believed to be the result of a collision between two universes. The energy release by the impact invaded both universes and then expanded rapidly. This is equally plausible as the big bang, with the added characteristic that the energy released in this manner is more likely to be ordered. When looked at closely this theory really indicates that the beginning of our universe as we know it was likely based on an interface with another universe, but the idea that these universes need to be parallel is a leap with many questions unanswered. There is nothing to substantiate that the universes even need to be on the same scale. (We will get back to this in a minute)
Second let’s look at black holes.
When Steven Hawking first stated that black holes did not follow the laws of conservation of information a debate began which changed or view of singularities, and yes, even our universe. We now accept the model that all energy/matter that enters a black hole is both trapped on the event horizon, and disintegrated and compressed as it passes the horizon. ( Could it possibly undergo”expansion” beyond the horizon.)These are considered two different “versions” or expressions of the same energy/matter. This model of different versions of all energy/matter has been applied to our universe also.
Let’s consolidate.
• There are 2 known types of singularities. Black holes and our pre-time universe.
• The laws of physics seem to break down in both types. However they seem to follow the same laws which we still do not fully understand.
• In both cases the reason for the laws breaking down is because we have no way to quantify the existence of energy/matter because of its infinite density.
I propose that the 2 types of singularity are actually one in the same, just viewed form opposite sides. This would mean that we are not part of a system of parallel universes; we are part of a nested system. Our universe at one time existed as a black hole in a superior universe. Then at some point it stored enough energy that it underwent an expansion event. This fits the data just as well as the parallel universe theory, but unlike the parallel universe theory we have ongoing events within our universe which we can observe, and so know to exist. We have just not recognized until now that black holes are other universes. The evidence is right there in front of us. We only need to collate it to see that it is the best explanation for the beginning of our universe. It is supported by all the studies that indicate our beginning was an interactive event with another universe. It explains expansion. It explains black holes. I hope someone reads this that has the resources to start an investigation, I do not. Please if this makes sense to you help me get the attention of someone who can look into it more closely.

Charlie Norris (grey_lightning)

 

[DaveC426913]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but PF is not the best forum for exploring personal theories.

Excerpted from the rules:

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

You might get away with it for a while, but don't be shocked if it gets locked at some point down the road.

 

[heusdens]

I think you should abstain from mentioning the idea about multiple universa as a theory in itself, since there is no such theory as such, but there are indeed theories that are plausible and have for some part been tested, that explain how and why the big bang came about, and from such theories (like inflationary cosmology, or the string/brane ekpyrotic model) it can be derived that there are possible other universes. So the idea that there are multiple universes comes out as a result or consequence from such a theory.
This is just to say, that there was not all of a sudden a hypotheses that perhaps not only planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters and superclusters occur in multiples but also the universe can be multiple, since such a hypothesis would have nothing to stand on (no positive evidence) and would not even be a scientific idea, unless it could in principle be detected. But in most of the scientific theories that deal with the consequence of there possible being multiple universes, the existence of such other universes themselves is near to impossible to verify directly.
So, for that reason, such ideas are discredited as scientific ideas. But the underlying theories of cosmological inflation and/or ekpyrotic models, have sufficient scientific grounds on which these ideas can be tested, and possible be ruled out.

 

[heusdens]

And btw. your idea of black holes that create or seed the coming into existence of new universes, is not a new idea, this idea was already mentioned by Smolin, who thought of a model of a self-reproducing universe guided by cosmological laws of evolution that fine-tune the physical parameters as to pro-creation of enough universes for which the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental phyiscs constants have the be tweaked in order to maximaze black hole production, and a side effect, such universes also make the existence of life forms possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

And btw. your idea of black holes that create or seed the coming into existence of new universes, is not a new idea,

Which grey_lightnin himself has freely admited, though not in this thread:

Actually i am not proposing anything new. although i didn't provide a bibliography, all the theories are well known and commonly accepted. the only speculative part i added is the observation that all we know about black holes and our pre-time universe indicates that they may well be one in the same phenominon.

Just wanted to point out that it was not grey's intention to
a] take credit for someone els'es idea, or
b] propose personal theories that have not been submitted to peer-review (which would violate PF guidelines).

 

[Chronos]

Smolin's cosmic natural selection proposal limits neutron stars to around 1.6 solar masses. There is good evidence for neutron stars in the 2 solar mass range.