Could Black Holes Actually Be Wormholes Into Other Universes?

[stephenwlin]

Here's an idea I came up with recently, that I wanted to share:

No true black holes exist. Every "apparent" event horizon is really
a separation of two universes, where the outside universe is
entangled geometrically with the inside universe. The Hubble
volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole,
of another universe. However, by generalization of the uncertainty
principle, this implies that the "outside universe" is "really"
simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably
finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net
information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to
zero. Equivalently, every "classical" black hole is really in a
microscopic superposition of countably finite many bitstates, again
with the net information "inside" and "outside" cancelling zero.
However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode
"bitstates" forever in the same volume, therefore it must leak
information in the form of "photons" (i.e. Hawking radiation).

Equivalently, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a
time from the "outside" in the form of cosmic background radiation,
that information being about the prior state of the otherwise causally
disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB == Hawking radiation). The
equivalence principle between these two views implies length
contraction and time dilation around gravitational bodies. Gravity
between photons is the single fundamental force of the universe.
All other sources of apparent information and causal connectivity
(i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial state of the universe
at the Big Bang, the only true singularity: the other fundamental
particles and forces are the result of bundles of photons taking different
paths through microscopic black holes (i.e. microscopic wormholes),
which exist at every point in 3+1 spacetime.

What does everyone think of this idea?

 

[jbar18]

I don't really know enough to argue for or against your idea, but I would like to ask what the theory would mean if it were correct? Would it change anything that we know at the moment? Would you be able to make any predictions from it? Without being able to test the theory or predict things from it, it won't really matter if it is correct or not.

To my limited knowledge it seems like a good idea (though I can't really comment), I would just like to know what implications it has?

Thanks

 

[stephenwlin]

Here's some testable predictions:

1. No black holes truly exist, because no singularity can truly form. Therefore, the "supermassive black hole" in the center of the galaxy does not really exist. In fact, depending on when the "black hole" formed, it may or may not be a wormhole into another universe entirely (well, not really another universe, but another part of the universe which is topologically far away when considering only 3+1 space)

2. Entanglement and gravity are tied together, in the sense that when entangled particles move apart from each other, the net gravitational pull of the system decreases. When the entangled particles come back together, the process unwinds itself. This is a solution to the EPR paradox: i.e. it explains the mechanism for the apparent non-local transfer of information between entangled particles.

3. The source of "dark energy" is entanglement between portions of the visible universe.

4. Quantum mechanics is deterministic based on non-local hidden variables (i.e. something like Bohmian mechanics, when extended relativistically, is true).

I have a few more, but that's just to get started :) Trust me, if you think about this some more, you can get a lot of predictions and postdictions out of this.