Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are we inside a black hole?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


The theory is that they are physical, spacial dimensions, just like the three we directly observe (and also like time, but because of our treating time differently when it isn't, it confuses things heaps).

The theorized reason we cannot observe these higher dimensions is that they are "curled up" to a diameter smaller than the best equipment can detect (FYI, you can Google the "Planck Size" to read more).

The theory is that some of the forces we observe (gravity, EM & such) reach out to other objects in our "3-space", but they do so through these hidden dimensions. This provides one possible explanation of some things like the missing mass of the universe.

Try & think of these dimensions not as "other worlds" or as philosophical ides, but more like odd places where we could lay down a rule and measure things in meters or feet.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Slavich
 


I think that the confusion relates to our differing concepts of what a dimension is.

I am talking about spatial dimensions, mathematical and physical things.

It makes sense that in measurement of the coordinates of an object within a spacial dimension, we could use meters or feet.

If mind and dimensionlessness (what a word!) are dimensions, then I don't know how we would obtain any useful measurements in meters, in the way we can with all other dimensions (including time).

So when I talk of dimensions, I am talking of a very particular thing, consistent with mathematics, physics and engineering principles.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I just watched a science show that talked about a researcher trying to get a picture of a black hole. He was from MIT and said maybe in 10 yrs we can do it. So just like an atom there has never been a picture taken of it. So it is all still theory IMO.

The atom and black holes. See D.B Larson and Walter Russell.



Edit: Well Russell seems to explain Atoms one way different from main stream science. And Larson argues against the Nuclear Atom
edit on 22-1-2012 by cplouffe because: Clarification



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I believe black holes are misidentified in what it is and how they work, perhaps they don't just suck everything into them and keep all of it there, maybe whatever is going into a black hole is broken down to the absolute base of molecules it is made of, and then ejected in the form of the jets you see images of on the internet.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slavich
Yes and no. Black holes crush matter so tiny that it becomes dimensionless. The best way to look at it is from a photon's perspective.

When a photon is not moving it vanishes. ....Anyways so imagine being a photon that isn't moving. Where does it go? Why is it that no matter where you look at something realtively that the speed of light remains constant? IF two objects were to go in opposite directions at the speed of light. From their perspective, the speed of light will still remain constant. Why is that?



The Photon doesn't vanish. It still exists in its excited state...back there (Time). If you want to see it again you must feed energy to bring it back up to you (convert matter to energy). Maybe proof we are in a black hole. If we were not in a black hole the Photon would always be there for us to see. And Time would not exist.

The "Speed of Light constant" is only our perception...Relative to the Observer. ....Matter's perception. The Photon would see a blackhole as a long stream of light (photons) being created as matter is converted to energy. It would determine the Speed of Light is the speed at which matter is converted to energy. Via magnetic fields in the blackhole ripping matter apart.

Just my crazy theory.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


At present, the scientific consensus is that there are at least 11 dimensions, although some have suggested even 27 dimensions.

A technical point: this is the scientific consensus among string theorists. Not all physicists are string theorists; more crucially, string theory is unproven and does not appear to be amenable to proof.

Do not forget that science is empirical. The scientific consensus remains (despite the efforts of string theorists who are, admittedly, the dominant school of theoretical physicists) that of a single universe with four-dimensional spacetime. We still live in Einstein's universe.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You are correct in that the 11 dimensional model was largely supported by string theory but increasingly, other theorists are utilizing multiple spatial dimensions to describe observed reality.

The use of unreal numbers and Hilbert Spaces existed well before the founding of String Theory.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Could the fact we are in a black hole explain why dark energy is missing? (its outside)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Here's an article on the topic:
Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

Wiki

It's quite an interesting question.

How is the universe like a black hole? the article states that our universe can be treated mathematically as being a black hole due to the "boundary" condition as that point at which light hasn't yet had enough time to reach earth. I guess this is analogous to the event horizon around a black hole. this seems like a weak analogy, so the fact that there is no information beyond this boundary is analogous to the fact that there is no information beyond the event horizon of a black hole, except inverse, as in we are inside the event horizon, and that event horizon is the point at which we cannot detect light (or radiation) coming towards us. (I do wonder why it just couldn't be that light hasn't reached us yet, I am confused on this point.)
So it would seem from this idea that we are all in a Schrodinger's box, with the cat, neither existing nor not existing vis a vis an outside observer. (except the event horizon of a black hole does encode to it's home unilverse, which is how this whole idea seems to have been started....) So if this were true (and there is some evidence, inconclusive at this point, which points in this direction according to the article) then the universe (including earth) is occurring in actuality at the boundary condition, which means we are in reality billions of light years from where we think we are. we are 2D data encoded on a spherical membrane (observable universe or cosmological horizon). So what causes the holographic projection of the data?

What is intriguing is that while we may not be able to affect the physical laws of the spherical membrane directly, could it raise the possibility of affecting the holographic projection of those interactions?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightspore
 

Wow!
I shall have to reread that again!
But what is your opinion on this:
Could the fact we are in a black hole explain why we cant find the missing 70%, dark energy?
After all, it doesnt exist in a black hole, but is outside in the "real universe"....



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I had the same thought, but really I have no idea. If we are in a black hole then it's hard to see how the outer universe could affect us at all - perhaps the infall of matter/energy from the exterior universe could cause an effect? Going to have to check up on how this stuff relates to string theory. I find myself wondering if the cosmological horizon could be a brane. Probably waaay off there.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightspore
 

Well think of it as russian dolls, just 1 is so much larger. Layered.
That could work. It would still have an effect.
Another way it could have an effect is what you write
OR
Also, maybe if you are inside a house, the outsie forces still exert, a however slight, but present influence.
No? Yes? Maybe?
So i would pressume, with logic, that just because we are inside something, it doesnt preclude we cannot measure what is outside (however distant), and our theories, equations point to this dark matter existing....so...?
I am not talking about god, there is none here just the real universe, so to speak.
I write this so my words may not be miscontrued.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightspore
 

Intrigueing idea:

"What is intriguing is that while we may not be able to affect the physical laws of the spherical membrane directly, could it raise the possibility of affecting the holographic projection of those interactions? "

What do you mean by holographic projection?
Can you describe this membrane? How exactly would you discribe it? Is it the "mouth" of the black hole, aka event horizon?
Btw: i have no doubts. We CAN do anything. If we can dream it, we can eventualy do it, this is what I have observed.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
This is to everyone.
I actually had a very enlightened thought on black holes, dark energy and such.
I would say to those who write that its not possible we are inside a black hole, to put forth an alternate theory to the big bang theory. Because, accordingly, something can arise out of nothing.
Now, I am not saying a whole universe got swallowed up as it is. No way. It got broken down, but it then it reasambled or assembled (same as big bang theory)...from the matter. It had enough time...

So, this is an extremly important question.
Also, if this is not the case of infinity: black hole within black hole etc....
Then it has unique consequences.
If say there are only a few black holes in the real universe, I aks why?
I also have an idea.
Shall i share?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


www.cracked.com... seems that yes ocasionaly they do break and science is not quite sure why interesting therory by the op i might even try to incorporate it into a scifi book i been working on for years s&F and i guess black holes up and dissapear some times too.....
edit on 23-1-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by BBalazs
 


www.cracked.com... seems that yes ocasionaly they do break and science is not quite sure why interesting therory by the op i might even try to incorporate it into a scifi book i been working on for years s&F


Lets talk, pm?
I have similar ideas.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I m just going from the article; the idea of the the universe being inside a black hole IS the idea that the universe is holographic. (It's far from proven though) I've been trying to grapple with the idea ever since I read that article. There s an outer limit to what we will ever be able to observe from Earth of the cosmos timewise (leaving aside FTL spaceships etc,. for the sake of argument). This limit is treated as the event horizon from what I understand (and that is not much really). It would be spherical in shape and encoded in bits. the bit would be the smallest unit of measurement - the theory unites thermodynamic and information systems through the concept of entropy (this is all from wikipedia).. All information in this physical system would be on the boundary, but it somehow gives rise to a holographic 3D "interior", which itself is blurred, and larger than the original bits..

I don't get dark matter at all. I often wondered if it is the "bulk", the sheer mass of a multidimensional universe. I think in Lisa Randall's theories gravity can leak between branes, maybe I have that reversed.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


is that the same as messaging? i have been here a while but think ive only sent like 7 messages,but if your looking for more ideas and stuff to research check out OPERA they were doing a cern test of some sorts sending light waves and i guess some of the light actualy got there earlier(60nano seconds) implying that the speed of light was infact not constant its the #1 thing on the cracked article.www.digitaljournal.com... there is a link for OPERA and i guess it was nutrinos not light waves(no idea what the hell the diffrence is) so i guess stuff moves faster then light now?
edit on 23-1-2012 by KilrathiLG because: add linky



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightspore
 



Ok, sorry i missed the article, i will read it, but my first idea was:
Why does it have to holographic?
Why cant a black hole, sucking in all it does, and breaking them up, start a kind of big bang inside?
It has a lot of time, for this "interior" big bang to occur...
And size is very realtive.
Do you understand what i am saying?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join