It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could some black holes be from another universe

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Could it be that these guys are right, well who knows.
Nevertheless its a fascinating idea. The linked ABC article breaks it down a bit for the layman but for a tougher read the original document is linked also.


According to Professor Bernard Carr and Alan Coley the universe could go through cycles of birth and death. They think that some black holes could be remnants of a previous universe that collapsed in a big crunch and was then reborn in the big bang - 13.7 billion years ago.

Carr and Coley think the universe expands and contracts but I thought we had proven it will not so something else must be going on if this were true.


So far primordial black holes only exist in theory, and even if scientists do eventually detect one, Carr and Coley admit there would be no way of determining if it was born in our universe or came from a previous epoch


But who know one day we may get an answer - so to survive in this theory we have to survive a black hole

Its all looking pretty black to me
but seriously what will they think of next

Some black holes may be older than time (ABC)



Abstract..
We discuss whether black holes could persist in a universe which recollapses and then bounces into a new expansion phase. Whether the bounce is of classical or quan- tum gravitational origin, such cosmological models are of great current interest. In particular, we investigate the mass range in which black holes might survive a bounce and ways of differentiating observationally between black holes formed just after and just before the last bounce. We also discuss the consequences of the universe going through a sequence of dimensional changes as it passes through a bounce.


Download the PDF here - Persistence of black holes through a cosmological bounce




posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by majestictwo

So far primordial black holes only exist in theory, and even if scientists do eventually detect one, Carr and Coley admit there would be no way of determining if it was born in our universe or came from a previous epoch

It's interesting to speculate about things like this but if there's no way to prove what universe it came from, isn't it about as useful as speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against speculation, I think it's fine especially if it leads to eventual experiments that might prove (or not) the speculation. But if there's no chance of ever proving it one way or another, I fail to see the point. Moreover, it seems we still have a lot to learn about black holes in our own universe, so figuring those out seems to add more value than rambling about untestable speculative ideas.

What makes it seem especially ridiculous to me is that we don't have a clue about how "inflation" actually worked in the early universe, so until that's understood, any speculations about what happened in previous cycles and what survived them, just seems over the top to me.
edit on 7-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes I agree, at the moment. But you know in perhaps a 1000 years something will turn up and this old paper will be referenced too with amazement particularly if there is something in it.

In my mind man has to be bold and have a go. There was a time when the atom was thought to be the smallest thing there is, now we have the LHC and we know different.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by majestictwo
In my mind man has to be bold and have a go. There was a time when the atom was thought to be the smallest thing there is, now we have the LHC and we know different.
Yes but that example illustrates my point of how I think science should work:

www.3rd1000.com...

Throughout the nineteenth century this view of the atom as a featureless, structureless, indivisible particle persisted. When the view broke down, it was through a line of experimentation

Experiments and observations are what tell us what's real and what isn't. So it's pleasing to me that it was through experiments that subatomic particles were discovered. That way we know there's something real about them and it's not just pie in the sky speculation.

I can point to some speculation about subatomic particles before they were revealed by experiments. And from what I've seen, the speculation was wrong. I certainly would have guessed wrong, as I thought nature would be somewhat symmetrical, and not have positively charged particles over 1800 times more massive than the negatively charged particles.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join