RingoKid said:
It seems simpler to connect the black hole by a "dark string" to the continuing creation of OUR universe at a leading edge of an expanding bubble...
...rather than BH's leading to creation of new universes
I wonder if occam would agree ?
RingoKid it looks to me as if you have made up an original theory. I don't see right away what it is about, or what the aim is, but if it is a theory you invented then some usual questions to ask about a new theory are
what does it assume?
what does it predict (that could make it testable)?
what does it explain?
Just to illustrate what I mean: Smolin Multiverse (which he calles CNS) is a testable theory that offers a way to explain parameters in the standard models of particle physics and cosmology.
It offers an explanation (which may be useful or not depending on whether the theory survives testing) why alpha is right around 1/137.036... instead of some other number and why
proton wavelength is 13E18 Planck lengths instead of some other number
and why the cosmological constant is E-123 instead of something different.
Smolin's CNS offers an explanation of "the dimensionless parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology", these numbers are just a few examples chosen to illustrate the kind of thing it explains.
CNS theory also can be checked and proven wrong (assuming it is wrong) because it makes some definite predictions like about the masses of certain type stars.
In line with your mention of Occam, the CNS picture does not assume much new---black hole and bigbang are not new ideas: They have been studied using Loop Gravity methods and found to be (as far as anyone can tell by the mathematics) the same thing---a quantum bounce that can be modeled and calculated with reasonable detail, though as yet without certainty. The bounce, an instantaneous fuzzy blur when contraction reverts to expansion, although calculable by LQG rules, is admittedly difficult to imagine.
Since these two former singularities are impossible to tell apart, it is not a great leap for Smolin to connect them, and assume that BH leads into BB. The major new thing Smolin assumes is (simply, I would say) that the parameters of physics change only very slightly in going thru a quantum bounce.
What you might think about, as regards your theory, is do the things it talks about really exist (black string, expanding bubble, leading edge)? Has anyone detected signals from them like they have from bigbang and black holes? More seriously, does your theory (or any other known multiverse theory besides CNS) predict numbers that would allow it to be tested? Does it predict the mass of some type of star that could be observed---so we could throw the theory out if it was wrong.
And finally, does it explain any of the parameters of the real world
like the number 1/137 which is basic to the periodic table of elements and to chemistry etc.? For me that is crucial---there are phyics constants basic to how and why things work (gravity, chemistry, fusion in stars, etc) and a multiverse theory should explain why those numbers are the sizes they are.
It could be that your theory is testable, predictive, explains something about how the world works---it is up to you to elaborate. I can't say whether it is or isnt, does or doesnt
