Article: Every black hole contains a new universe

[ThinkToday]

Saw this was in the news today. Not my field, but I was interested enough to read it. I noticed the author stated "It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself."

I' m curious if this is an outlier opinion or more common. It is interesting, and kind of reminds me of the closing moments of an MIB movie

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/17/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/

 

[phinds]

I think "outlier" is way too kind.

Looks like FOX's science facts are about as reliable as their political facts.

EDIT: by the way, I seem to recall that there have been threads on this forum where that particular point of view has been discussed, if you want to do a forum search.

 

[Chronos]

I have some problems with the article.
"... As energy can be converted into mass, the immensely high gravitational energy in this extremely dense state would cause an intense production of particles, greatly increasing the mass inside the black hole..."
This sounds like a free energy device.
"... The motion of matter through the black hole's boundary, called an "event horizon," would only happen in one direction, providing a direction of time that we perceive as moving forward. The arrow of time in our universe would therefore be inherited, through torsion, from the parent universe..."
So, where are the 'white holes' we should see due to infalling matter from our 'parent' universe?
"...Because of torsion, matter would decay into familiar electrons and quarks, and antimatter would decay into "dark matter"... "
Interesting, and this is predicted by what version of particle physics?
" ... There is some recently reported evidence from surveys of over 15,000 galaxies that in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed", or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed", or rotating counterclockwise... "
A reference would lend credence to this bold assertion.

There are any number of things that tend to disfavor the notion our universe is a black hole embedded in a 'parent' universe, not to mention logical issues - like what happens when black holes merge?

 

[skydivephil]

Whilst I despire Fox News, they can occasaionlly get stuff right.
Its real Paper appeared in Physics Ltters B here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269310003370
Wikiepdia has an explantion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Popławski
As I understand it in this model the new universe is formed when the balck hole forms, so a black hole merger won't affect the baby univers.e
Interestingly I remmber Guth writing about creation of inflationary universes in a lab and how they would appear as balck holes that would get discconected from their parent universe again implying that if this were to be realized in nature a black hole merger would not affect the baby universe.

 

[larrybud]

Um, it's a syndicated article, not a Fox News Article. I always find it amusing when those who are supposedly committed to objective thinking jump to conclusions because of their own bias! Carry on!

 

[twofish-quant]

Saw this was in the news today. Not my field, but I was interested enough to read it. I noticed the author stated "It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself."

I' m curious if this is an outlier opinion or more common.

When we are talking about quantum gravity, everyone is just guessing. There is no consensus on anything, and every opinion is an outlier. Looking at the author's website, I would have to say that his ideas are "serious scientist crazy" rather than "crank crazy".

http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/

The key thing is that he is trying to gather evidence for his ideas, which makes him serious.

Now if you want to see any even crazier idea...

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0612185

The idea here is not only does every black hole contain a new universe, that universes with stars produce more black holes and new universes. Therefore we have multiplying universes and it so happens that universes that can produce stars have more baby universes, which means that you end up with most universes with stars.

One thing that you just have to keep saying to yourself is "these ideas might be wrong."

 

[Chronos]

I believe Smolins 'cosmological natural selection' hypothesis' is a smoking ruin, but, the general idea is not ruled out. In string theory all universes, however improbable, are not only permitted, but, required to exist.

 

[shreyakmath]

As recently demonstrated by an experiment with 2 water bottle, it can be conjectured that a black hole is a 2-way tunnel i.e two black holes in different universes can be connected using a wormhole or einstein-rosen bridge.
Also, a black hole in another universe may be a white hole in ours and thus black holes in our spacetime can produce matter in another spacetime. Thereby the statement-"every black hole contains a universe".

 

[e^(i Pi)+1=0]

As recently demonstrated by an experiment with 2 water bottle, it can be conjectured that a black hole is a 2-way tunnel...

 

[phinds]

As recently demonstrated by an experiment with 2 water bottle, it can be conjectured that ...

I certainly hope you are joking. If not, I suggest you read some actual physics instead of whatever nonsense you have been reading.

 

[twofish-quant]

I believe Smolins 'cosmological natural selection' hypothesis' is a smoking ruin

That's good! The fact that we are at the point that we can rule out pre-big bang scenarios is progress. One point that Smolin kept making was that his hypothesis was testable.

In string theory all universes, however improbable, are not only permitted, but, required to exist.

At which point you *have* to invoke something like the anthropic principle to explain the universe. One thing that bothers me (and a lot of other people) about string theory scenarios is that they are tough to falsify. If you have a theory in which all universes exist, then how you do falsify that theory based on any observations?

 

[shreyakmath]

I certainly hope you are joking. If not, I suggest you read some actual physics instead of whatever nonsense you have been reading.

I would like to mention that this experiment with 2 water bottles with their mouths joined, one empty and one containing water has been performed and this demonstration has been published as an article in physorg.com

 

[twofish-quant]

I would like to mention that this experiment with 2 water bottles with their mouths joined, one empty and one containing water has been performed and this demonstration has been published as an article in physorg.com

Can you provide a link to the article. The site looks decent, and I think that there is an article there that is being misinterpreted.

 

[shreyakmath]

Yes, here is a link to the article. U can see the 2 waterbottles connected at the mouths. The 2 bottles actually represent 2 different universes. The upper bottle is filled with a liquid. The transfer of the liquid from one bottle to another represents transfer of matter between the 2 universes via a wormhole
http://m.phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

 

[shreyakmath]

My previous reply was also misinterpreted. The link will be useful to all of you.
I am reposting the link here
http://m.phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

 

[twofish-quant]

My previous reply was also misinterpreted. The link will be useful to all of you.
I am reposting the link here
http://m.phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

That doesn't mean anything. He is using the water bottles as an demonstration. It's not proof or evidence of anything.

 

[shreyakmath]

Yes, it is just a demonstration. I didnt say it was a proof or anythin

 

[TheTechNoir]

It was misleading then calling it an experiment... When you say an experiment involving apparatus, followed by saying it can be conjectured that x it implies that a test was made and the result of the test pointed towards what is being conjectured to my understanding.

That's okay though, you just used the wrong words - as was said demonstration would be more appropriate. It gave me a good laugh though since I thought the wording of experiment was intentional and considered it may be an amusing joke. :P