What Distinguishes the t=0 Singularity from a Black Hole Singularity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the differences between t=0 singularities and black hole singularities, questioning why the chaotic behavior observed in the early universe doesn't manifest within black holes. Some theories suggest that phenomena similar to the t=0 singularity could occur inside black holes, potentially allowing for the existence of other universes. The conversation touches on the holographic principle, proposing that our three-dimensional reality may be a projection of two-dimensional information at the universe's boundary. However, it is noted that singularities are largely theoretical constructs stemming from limitations in current cosmological models. The need for new models is emphasized, particularly in light of quantum gravity theories that propose alternatives to traditional singularity concepts.
ugalpha
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I just don't see how they can be the same, if singulariity t=0 eventually went all berserk (due to quantum repulsive force perhaps) or whatever other reason like it actually did why is it not happening inside of black holes?
 
Space news on Phys.org


I believe there are certain theories that say this IS happening inside black holes. Or at least, GR does not forbid the existence of another universe within the confines of a spinning black hole.

This leads to all sorts of neat ideas, i.e. the holographic projection of information at the event horizon boundary could be analogized to say that WE are the 3 dimensional projected image of 2-dimensional information at the boundary of OUR universe.
 


Nice you just messed up my brain even more with this idea. Gonna go sleep and dream about this holographic projection.

ty sir!
 


Your question implies the existence of a T=0 singularity and black hole singularities, both of which have no factual basis. As far as I can tell from reading PF, singularities are predicted mathematically but are widely believed to be the result of problems with our cosmo models and related math. All of which makes answering your question pretty dang hard...
 


A singularity identifies the point where all our models cease to yield sensible results. That is sufficient motivation to seek new models.
 


But singualrities are resolved into a quanurtm bounce in many quantum gravity models. Main one being LQG but also I think Horava gravity. I read Martin Bojowalds book and its pretty clear to me what they are saying for the big bang. But I still want sure what is supposed tgo be happeneing in balck holes with these models. Bojowald didnt seem keen on CNS in his book.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top