Dubstepforum.com

scspkr99 wrote:Can someone explain where the matter for Lee Smolin's black hole universes come from?

By no means my specialty so I might have over-simplified this, but I've always figured the matter is from the black hole itself - the idea is that they're created when a black hole collapses, aren't they?

See that's kinda how I understand it but I'm still confused , firstly I'll admit I've not read his stuff directly it comes 2nd had from authors referencing him but I though the matter would be the matter than the black hole compresses. as it forms, it makes me think that a parent universe must be way bigger than every universe it gives birth to?

I'm already out of my depth though

scspkr99 wrote:See that's kinda how I understand it but I'm still confused , firstly I'll admit I've not read his stuff directly it comes 2nd had from authors referencing him but I though the matter would be the matter than the black hole compresses. as it forms, it makes me think that a parent universe must be way bigger than every universe it gives birth to?

I'm already out of my depth though

Not necessarily, when a black hole collapses it often seems to leave behind a [Micro]Quasar which shoots matter/energy from somewhere at ridiculously high velocity into the Universe... one of the theories is that Quasars may be evidence of the collapsed black hole being able to act as a conduit to exchange matter with other 'universes'.

It's not necessarily that the black hole creates the new universe and so is limited to this Universe's matter to fill the new one, it might be just that a collapse breaches the membrane between two existing universes and leaves it permeable under certain conditions - given that we can't see past a singularity, we can't really even guess how much matter is at the other end. It might well be a universe even older than ours...

The word theoretical in theoretical physics is one of the most appropriate words in the entire English language. From what I've read over the last few years, we don't know shit about this really; we have a lot of ideas, but too few methods to test them.

Thanks magma, I think I'm now clearer despite me feeling further out of my depth. Physics kinda does this to me

So, I wikid Smolin's black hole...

I don't get it, why should there be a Universe "on the other side" of a black hole?
And it seemed like it said that these universes are actually created by the black holes.
I mean, I understand black holes as objects more or less, there would be no "other side"


Unless we mean inside this black hole. Is that it? A universe inside a black hole? because there I could see shit happening. The ever increasing matter in the universe, an expansion. Some kind of squared or quartic mathematical relationship.

Never mind the last part.

what is a sun? is it a string theory?

Presuming, against my judgement, that is a genuine question, Our sun is a star.
String theory is a theory which aims to explain all observable phenomena "in one go". If I'm not mistaken at least.

which one of those is a quasar then? on a scale of 1 to 10, what would you say the possibility of martians being on the SUN (or "star") is?

This is what people mean when they call you out on derailing threads.

sorry bro but to be fair, you shouldn't have answered me, it only encourages me. I feel bad now though, rest assured. Did originally come here just to say I was reading about Lee Smolin the other day coincidentally, but realised that'd be fuckin borin m8

PRICK

5910 wrote:So, I wikid Smolin's black hole...

I don't get it, why should there be a Universe "on the other side" of a black hole?
And it seemed like it said that these universes are actually created by the black holes.
I mean, I understand black holes as objects more or less, there would be no "other side"


Unless we mean inside this black hole. Is that it? A universe inside a black hole? because there I could see shit happening. The ever increasing matter in the universe, an expansion. Some kind of squared or quartic mathematical relationship.

Never mind the last part.

I think it's just a postulate that, since:
a) We don't know what goes on inside black holes, and
b) It has been theorised that our universe arose from a singularity
then it could be that each black hole's singularity could in fact contain within it a new universe. The scales don't have to be similar to ours, so the mass of the original star/black hole need not have any direct bearing on the total "mass" available in the new universe.

kay wrote:

5910 wrote:So, I wikid Smolin's black hole...

I don't get it, why should there be a Universe "on the other side" of a black hole?
And it seemed like it said that these universes are actually created by the black holes.
I mean, I understand black holes as objects more or less, there would be no "other side"


Unless we mean inside this black hole. Is that it? A universe inside a black hole? because there I could see shit happening. The ever increasing matter in the universe, an expansion. Some kind of squared or quartic mathematical relationship.

Never mind the last part.

I think it's just a postulate that, since:
a) We don't know what goes on inside black holes, and
b) It has been theorised that our universe arose from a singularity
then it could be that each black hole's singularity could in fact contain within it a new universe. The scales don't have to be similar to ours, so the mass of the original star/black hole need not have any direct bearing on the total "mass" available in the new universe.

Yeah, that's what I thought towards the end of my ramble. I couldn't see it making sense the way I'd read it on Wiki. In which case I presume that it would be that the matter for that universe would be taken from the universe in which the black hole exists.

I just got home from a book talk by Brian Green on "Icarus at the edge of time". To the US ninjas, I recommend checking it out because the film is pretty cool to watch. Like if you're not that interested in a short story about some kid who goes into a black hole, then yeah the film itself makes for a good light show.

In the discussion that ensued after the talk, we inevitably dredged up relativity and things of the like.
Now, I've not yet covered it in the course I'm currently enrolled in, and I'm hesitant to approach my professor and ask him questions since I owe him some coursework, but could someone explain to me how time actually 'slows down' or 'speeds up'? I understand that that's what it seems like from a particular reference frame as you watch someone enter the horizon of a black hole, but I don't understand why the reflection of light is said to govern time.~


I have watched dozens of lectures on youtube with Robert Eagle and Leonard Susskind, but I'm still pretty darn lost here. Why should time itself change?

There will be more questions, I'm struggling to get my thoughts to my fingers cohesively.

quantum psychics is my shit.

Cool thread.

As for the whole "is there potential for more universes within the singularity of blackhholes?".... if that is the case,wouldn't it make more sense to phrase it as "Within a blackhole, there is energetic potential for another expressed part of the (singular) Universe to be 'realized'/quantized etc.

Even with the multiverse theory, they would all still have to exist within a unified whole. As in, every multiple instance of a universe, must exist dependently on every other individualized instance. I.e. If singularity is unity, then each universe in the multiverse would be an example of unity extending in to multiplicity. Object - Subject. But ultimately, there is only a unified objective state.

If we hypothetically started with a singularity, wouldn't that also indicate a return journey to that same singularity, or some kind of warped time-space-space-time 'return'/crunch? (i don't like the word crunch either...) Newton's laws of motion would indicate that with the act of expansion, there must be contraction? Even if this is occurring on scales and time-space frames we can't even comprehend.

I guess my points are more cases of semantics ,syntax and language as apposed to hard physics, but i feel they are still both intrinsically linked together as we can only aquire scientific knowledge and comprehend new concepts and understanding once we have assigned the new words and numbers in new combinations to create and test the probability and possibilities of these new models.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

No universe can be hacked by the same universe doing the hacking

sorry if i brang too much (or not enough ) philosophy to the physics thread

I presume the black hole would have the "energy" for a universe inside. But when I think about it being a singularity, a non-dimensional point in space, I'm uneased by the thought that it should be too small for matter to arrange itself, particularly in a way I which there is "space" and not just matter on matter while the black hole continues to collapse and become more dense. I mean th guy has a doctorate, so I think it's safe to assume that there's a reason for it, but my undereducated mind can't follow just yet. I'll check this thread again once I get my degree.

In the discussion, someone asked him about time travel and he said that it is generally impossible for someone to go back in time, and that this is thought because of the inumerable paradoxes this would raise.
Perhaps...

If time travel exists, then it has already happened

When physics/science /existence unease's you, it's time to intuit what you would imagine would be the most ideal insight for this moment in time. regardless of whether that insight is physics related! I bet the singularity still feels pretty spacious about it all.

The human pursuit of Physics is essentially a portion of the universe trying to Compute it's self Proper strange when we look at it beyond our subjective dilemma of trying to figure it all out.

To me physics and science in general is a method of thinking and measuring your way through the universe, yet i feel there are other modes and means of travelling ,navigating and understanding that are just as valid, yet not bound by the constraints of the intellect and the largely 'work in progress 'language we have tied ourselves too if that makes sense. The journey from simplicity to complexity and back again.

Like i said the other day, i think Science/physics and philosophy still have a lot to digest and assimilate from each other. Both are methods for framing questions, yet neither contain the moon it's self, but only the finger that points to it.

Einstein's thoughts on the importance of the "Philosphy of physics" and the philosophical implications of his ideas deal with more on that.

As for Physics questions... What are the advantages and disadvantages (if any) of the normalization /renormalization process, when dealing with what would have been , infinite values?

garethom wrote:the same as would happen to you if you went inside any other colour hole you racist fuck

i just loled. that was pretty good.

I dont have any credentials in the field but I have outstanding interest in anything Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Electro Dynamics related. Count on me to at least ask some questions if you start other discussions.