I don’t think the black holes are the ones with the problem.
I'm not a physicist but it's interesting to think about the implications:
1. No singularity at the center of a black hole
2. Universe's expansion rate is not constant because it's blackholes powering it with matter
3. Eventually expansion slows, stops and reverses
And now my own crazy ideas:
1. Maybe the universe is a inside a black hole
2. Maybe the big bang was a result of the birth of another black hole somewhere else, and that the rapid expansion rate of the early universe was due to the a huge amount of matter converted into dark energy by this black hole
Inside of black holes looks nothing like ordinary spacetime. Inside black hole, everything in your future is with decreasing radial coordinate, which means space is shrinking until you hit the singularity where radial coordinate is zero and you have no future.
The "you won't notice crossing the event horizon" troupe is true only in a very local sense. If you move around and observe the geometry around you, you can definitely tell you're inside a black hole.
Also, I’m not sure why you’re arguing about the radial coordinate being time-like. You can only measure in your own local reference frame. You wouldn’t necessarily be able to transform between your own local reference frame to the blackhole’s if you don’t know you’re in one.
The universe as a black hole is actually a very old idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology
I’m not saying we are in one, but I’m saying it is not as obviously false as you might be arguing.
Does volume even make sense in GR?
Thought experiment here would be: suppose me and you appeared stationery (from the point of view of the outside reference frame) just above the horizon of a non-rotating black hole in the manner of Boltzmann brains. We immediately start falling and cross the horizon. Now will you see me receding from you or going at you? Will I be red-shifted or blue-shifted?
What gets a little mind bending for me is the idea that the physics inside the black hole can differ slightly from the ancestor universe. So black holes will preferentially create descendant universes that prefer to create more black holes.
This is a different multiverse theory than the quantum many worlds theory. The limitation of quantum many worlds is that the physics doesn't change. But in the ancestor black hole many worlds theory it does.
When you put these together, you can get an even larger multiverse, where anything that can happen does happen, but only if the laws of physics allow for black holes. That may mean the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is out there somewhere, so long as those laws of physics allow for black holes. Right? Again not a physicist.
"there are all sizes of infinity, some infinities are bigger than others. The infinity of Real numbers is bigger than the infinity of all positive numbers, and it should be noted that while the infinity of all positive numbers is infinite the number 3 only shows up in it once."
https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-marvel-cinematic-multiv...
So first we need to answer does math follow physics or does physics follow math?
If math follows physics, and the physics is changing across universes in the multiverse in question, then no you're assertion is wrong.
If physics follows math, then we would have to go up the level higher, and we're not talking about that right now.
There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them, and that our universe could be underneath countless layers of black holes forming universes that form black holes ad infinitum.
There is a Kurzgestadt video[0] that discusses the theory in more detail. Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
Calling it a "theory" is kind of wrong, it's not a "theory" according to the classical definition of the word. The word has been diluted over time to mean any thought anyone has about anything, but it used to mean something that has been proven by observation and empirical evidence. Yes, I'm being pedantic.
>A "classical" definition of a theory refers to a well-established, comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon, based on a body of evidence and often including clearly defined principles or laws, signifying a robust and widely accepted understanding of a subject, as opposed to a mere hypothesis or speculation; essentially, a "theory" in the true scientific sense
>Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
I'm not sure this qualifies as "science". It's more like stoner speculation.
Science is defined as:
>"The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
There is no observation, experimentation, or testing of theories that could ever happen for these notions about black holes and the universe(s).
It could be that the universe is a giant egg laid by a giant chicken, and that is just as plausible as "black holes create universes inside them" as far as we know.
Theories usually are just based on other theories and just create a theory from the current available data. The less data you have, the larger the possible space that your theory might lie in.
Hypotheses are usually things that rework theories because we have some new data that showed that our theories were inaccurate/false/invalid and builds a new framework that more accurately models the data and theories that we have.
Take this just with grain of salt, this is just a philosophical view of the meanings of the words as I understand them.
Most of these interpretations will be cut out once a better ways to proper undestanding is found. I imagine electrons shells, wave function collapse, pseudo-vectors, relativistic mass, xyz ... will go away quickly to be replaced with more suitable concepts previously (and still) held back by necessity of humans to be able to do some math with pen and paper.
Not going away. It's based too directly in quantum mechanics principles, and the same tools are used in too may other problems with good results. If you talk to a hard core physicist, they may explain some minor corrections, but the simple model is 99% accurate and the corrections quite technical. Perhaps there is a better theory in the future, but it will be very weird, you really don't want to know it.
> wave function collapse
It's going away, but it may take 500 years. Nobody likes wave function colapse. There is people working to eliminate it, but we have no clue if it's hard, very hard or impossible. I think that a combination of the so-called-many-worlds-interpretation and something-something-decoherence will solve it in 50 years, or 100 years or 500 years. I'm optimistic, but it may take a while......
> pseudo-vectors
Solved? The problem is drawing normal vectors that are 1-forms and pseudo-vectors that are mostly 2-forms in the same space. Most pseudo-vectors are like a tiny surface area instead of a tiny arrow. But people love to draw all of them as arrows and that causes the problem. Also, in special relativity the electric field (vector) and magnetic field (pseudo-vector) are combined in a single weird entity that fixes the problem. There is still the problem with the weak force, but I think it's solved once you replace mass with the Higgs boson. So it's "solved" if you like to use a little more math and want to translate it to everyone else that likes arrows.
> relativistic mass
Solved. Most modern Special Relativity books try to avoid relativistic mass. The problem is that you need number to accelerate to one side and a different number to accelerate to the front/rear. So it's better to skip it and use other equations. The usual "relativistic mass" is good for accelerations to one side to get circular movements, so it's nice for some problems.
> xyz
I have no idea what it means.
Has almost nothing to do with actual orbitals. "Filling electron shells", "octets" are just idiotic old rule of thumb ideas only accidentally aligning with reality.
> wave function collapse
I think it's going away pretty fast as we exprimentally find quantum behaviors in increasingly macroscopic objects. At some point it will become clear that nothing collapses into particles and it's just that through interaction wavefunctions narrow down when they exchange some energy and momentum. But other interactions can spread them apart back again. We are gonna create consistent description of the process in both directions.
> pseudo-vectors
they are still used but they are gonna be replaced by bivectors as they are more natural
> relativistic mass
true that it's partially sovled, but we need a generation or two of people not mentioning at all in educational context or metioning it negatively for it finally go away ... today it's still treated as "useful educational metaphor" which it is not
> xyz
Basically breaking down math calculations to coordinate wise caluclations
People will stop doing that because most symbolic maths in education is going to be done with computers and rarely anyone will be doing any element-wise transforamtions on anything.
It's a good rule of thumb for hand waving chemistry. It's not good enough to predict protein folding, but it's good enough to understand how amino acids connect. I don't expect it to disappear.
> wave function collapse
I disagree because I expect a different solution to the problem.
> pseudo-vectors -> bivectors
I agree. We only have to convince the other 7999999998 persons :) .
> relativistic mass
Another good rule of thumb, but I'm not sure for whom. This days nobody has to make a DIY synchrotron at home. It can probably go away, but it will resurface from time to time like a clever trick in a YouTube video.
> xyz
I like covariant equations, so I agree. Anyway, at work we sometimes use some non-covariant approximations but we add a search to optimize the base to get the best one were we can apply to nasty coordinate tricks.
Anyway, I needed like 10 years to understand the difference between a matrix and a linear transformation. 20yo probably only can use coordinates until they grow up.
The universe started with a single Big Bang, but is maintained by an interrelated force continually applied that keeps allowing it to resist collapse, the resulting system allowing local minima such as Earth's sweet spot of smallish sun + gentle orbit.
It's almost like it was designed to be perfect, with nicely balancing counterforces, all set in a sea of brutal extrema, and all set to mathematically clockwork precision that is discoverable by intelligent inhabitants, whose bodies, themselves, operate under those same physical laws. Almost ;-)
Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics
As Prof. Parker said, "We'll see who falls flat." (That's a paraphrase from memory; I doubt it's an exact quote.)
I apologize for not making that clear, but I only know of their very basic nature, not their mathematical-physics relationships and differences. That's not my area of expertise. I'm a general systems person, so I have some very basic knowledge of how such systems behave. This is due to my curiosity about the universe and my own self, which has given me access to persons much more deeply connected than myself.
Note that Eugene Parker, too, had a lot of maths to back his claims up, but that didn't help him convince his peers. Only when we sent a probe up that could measure the solar wind did his detractors begin to stand down. That is always the way new levels of understanding are treated by the status quo.
That's totaly wrong. The movenent of electrons arround rhe nucleus is explained by the Schoedinger equation that does not use dark energy at all.
I don't think so, but I'm open to learning.
The eigenvalues are the energies. The differences if energies are easy to measure experimentaly looking at the light of discharge lamps. Most of the science of early 20th century is triying to find a theory that explains the colors in that light.
The eigenvectors of the Schoedinger equations are the clouds distributions of the electrons. I'm not sure how difficult is to measure them directly, but they are important to get the size and shape of molecules and the positions of atoms inside crystals and a lot of other stuff.
The same theory that explains the the light of discharge lamps and the electronic clouds also explains the leds in the screen and the transistors in the procesor of yoyr phone.
And dark energy is not used in any of these calcuñations.
Sure, the Schoedinger Equation describes the electron cloud, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't account for why it is moving, and not spiraling into the nucleus. It can't. Put a different way, describing something's movement does not explain why it's moving. Still the SE is as amazing achievement, but it is descriptive of effects, not causes.
It’s almost like the ones that aren’t ideal for life don’t tend to have much life to notice that fact.
Be thankful there's no humans on Uranus.
Hell, penguins don’t even like the tropics on the same planet.
Or maybe they already proved that black holes consume some dark matter but at a much lower rate to explained this.
I think this and JWST early galaxy findings mean we don't really understand gravity.
>> we don't really understand gravity
I would say that what we don't understand is how the universe is structurally layered, vibrationally/dimensionally. That 5/6ths of the matter is missing lines up with our physical dimension (of energy and matter) being only one of six onionish dimensional layers, all contained within the same 3-space.
The five dimensions are three of space (x,y,z), one of time (t), and one of dimensional vibration (?). That's the structure, but I have neither the maths nor the details to divine how everything is interrelated. All the dimensions' matter does combine to contribute to the inertia of the galaxies we can see.
What is particularly difficult is that we can only measure our dimension's matter & energy with our tools, which are, of course, made of our matter & energy. In specific high-energy experiments, however, we can get some crossover of, e.g., anti-particles appearing on our side of the "wall".
That's the structure, as far as I understand it. The rest will require much maths and experiments and exploring the unknown. That is what Einstein did to expand Newton's understanding. There's at least one more level-up needed to encompass our measured corner-case phenomena.
Based on a quick read on wikipedia, Phlogiston goes well with darkons and holes.
There are six total vibrational dimensions, inhabiting this same 3-space, with no direct physics-style interaction between them except (somehow?!) collectively contributing to the totality of inertia that keeps the galaxies from flying apart.
All I have are breadcrumbs, my friend, and some understanding of how it fits into our lives.