hoola Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I see the big bang as an explosion of a special kind of black hole at the end of it's life. Regular black holes blow up if the aren't fed after a long period, then go in a moderate size pop. I see the universe as having been described by something I call the IBH, or informational black hole. A black hole with so much information in it ,the information described mass, and all other physical objects and fields. The hole "leaked" information in a hawking radiation style emission, describing space/time. After a period of time, the loss of the information to describe space eventually caused a similar pop with the IBH, which of course was much larger than an ordinary black hole pop in today's universe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) umm no sorry, first off regular black holes do not explode if they are not fed, that is also not how black holes lose mass. Lets expand on that, mass loss is done via hawking radiation. if the temperature of the surrounding environment is higher than the black holes, black body temperature then the BH will continue to gain mass. If the surrounding temperature is lower than the BH's blackbody temperature, then the BH will gradually lose mass. This mass loss is an incredibly slow process a black hole of one solar mass would take roughly 2.0*1067 years to evaporate. smaller black holes evaporate faster. As far as information loss/preservation that is still a subject of some debate, so I won't go into that However an explosion from some central location also does not fit observational data. the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, observations agree with this at a high precision. Isotropic=no preferred direction Homogeneous=no preferred location an explosion would have a preferred direction (origin point) and would also be inhomogeneous (higher energy-density towards the origin) expansion shows us that all distances between any galaxies not gravitationally bound are moving apart from each other equally in all directions think of a balloon. here is a few articles on common misconceptions. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansionhttp://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies these article I have also posted, including others to learn cosmology according to the concordance LCDM model (hot big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant) I would advise reading the misconceptions sections, then if your truly interested there is also some textbook style article designed to teach cosmology (basic) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/?p=805150 now to my final point, had you read this thread you would have already realized that your idea is wrong please note Delta1212's reply in post #3 please also note the articles I posted in post #7 as far as other forms of universe from black hole models see my post in number 10 Edited June 7, 2014 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) since the IBH I propose was the only "thing" in the universe, the there was no surrounding temp. to keep the information from leaking out. When I say it was a special black hole, it also had a special "explosion", one of an expression of information that described primordial physical reality. Since this proposed "download" of the accumulated memory of the IBH was informational it only became material after the exposition of the inflation was complete. As the description became described, the continuing expansion gets held to C as it fell under einstein's speed limit as determined by the logic sub-strata that formed the IBH from the chaos... Edited June 7, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) fine your proposing a speculative theory, can you show the math ? after all this is a special BH that doesn't exist in our universe so without supportive mathematics and peer reviewed supportive material your model proposal is meaningless. A straight statement is not sufficient. You've been a member of the forum long enough to understand the rules. While your at it explain how this can lead to a homogeneous and isotropic universe. An exploding, star etc is NOT homogeneous and isotropic. There is a preferred direction and location. Edited June 7, 2014 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I see the big bang as an explosion of a special kind of black hole at the end of it's life. Regular black holes blow up if the aren't fed after a long period, then go in a moderate size pop. I see the universe as having been described by something I call the IBH, or informational black hole. A black hole with so much information in it ,the information described mass, and all other physical objects and fields. The hole "leaked" information in a hawking radiation style emission, describing space/time. After a period of time, the loss of the information to describe space eventually caused a similar pop with the IBH, which of course was much larger than an ordinary black hole pop in today's universe... since the IBH I propose was the only "thing" in the universe, the there was no surrounding temp. to keep the information from leaking out. When I say it was a special black hole, it also had a special "explosion", one of an expression of information that described primordial physical reality. Since this proposed "download" of the accumulated memory of the IBH was informational it only became material after the exposition of the inflation was complete. As the description became described, the continuing expansion gets held to C as it fell under einstein's speed limit as determined by the logic sub-strata that formed the IBH from the chaos... ! Moderator Note You should use these two posts to start your own speculative thread. Much better than trying to change the subject during someone else's conversation. Do you understand? Rhetorical question. Please don't respond to this modtip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 I must state plainly that I don't think an exploding star caused the universe, only that this IBH delivered the big bang..precisely as the mechanism behind it...more succinctly, was the BB...I agree that the idea is ridiculous and have no math to support it as the idea requires a logic-ing out what happened before the appearances of the maths, which are a "contrived substance"...this does belong in speculations, sorry. I will try to continue it there. However unlikely the prospect, it seems more likely than a common supenova in today's universe causing the BB, so I am in agreement with your overall thinking on that particular question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 ! Moderator Note Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83280-what-if-the-big-bang-was-just-the-supernova-of-a-star/ Since "Please don't respond to this modtip" was ignored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) thank you mr moderator....the idea of the IBH, in of course borrowed from wheeler and lately tegmark. As a furthering of the logic that extends beyond (before) the mathematical object ideas..and that there was a time before math, then logic, then chaos,to the void in that order...how to address this seemingly evident possibility seems interesting to me, and amongst other things, it solves the problem of infinites and as an unexpected bonus, (the) nothing..I see the IBH as the collection of the maths generated by PI, and the information is so vast, it amounts to a software package describing, in real time, it's own "hardware"..the universes. So I see the universes fully formed but still evolving in the details..with evolution as one of the many component sections of the IBH in at least in one of them, as I see the IBH having capacity to form other finite numbers of universes, and still occaisionaly adding them, but never an infinite amount of them with doppelangers all about. Edited June 8, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) considering the case of the mechanism of the quantum in regards to my general thinking on the IBH scenario, I had considered that quantum fluctuations as well as virtual particle and other unstablities were part of the underlying mathematics of the "Void to BB" scenario and functioned independently. It does seem possible that if the IBH still exists and did not disappear or go into stasis after the BB event, then the material universe may have these instabilities on the small scale, and the expansion on the large scale, as a result of energy fed into the universe that was not only to afford the initial descriptions (BB), but is staying around to "keep things moving". If a person were to shield these imaginary forces from entering a region of space, quantum fluctuations and virtual particle formation might cease, giving in the case of a particle without the quantum "stimulation", an absolute position and velocity, violating that principle. I further see that after the IBH described the BB, it continued to supply the energy, in an informational sense, of maintaining the illusion of reality by supplying the completed descriptions (particles & fields) an energy source to calculate the outputs their particular math structures would code for...without the constant maintenance of the IBH, reality would revert to mere description of the same. Since the law forbidding knowledge of exactitudes of position an velocity would be violated, I conjecture that if one were to somehow shield the IBH energy from a test region in space, anything, particles or fields would de-materialize, and return at the end of the shielding experiment...acting as a sort of cloaking device..... the idea of sustained reality seems to explain why gravity straight-line forces "seem" to violate C. If everything is being "talked to" by a common structure, then the interactions that allow gravity to function as Newton states, are calculated and transmitted in accordance with the need to provide stable functioning of the orbits, with the correct information being pre-calculated and sent out in anticipation of when the signal would be slowly delivered (at C) and arrive in a "just in time" (pun intended) fashion...keeping things running smoothly...this would require a huge number-cruncher keeping the entire universe "in tune" in all concordant physical relationships. The universe is a very busy place... Edited June 9, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 if there is essentially a computer running things, then gravitation would be a major work load. Perhaps to keep the work to a minimum, a cut-off point of the mass of material objects was determined, so that under a certain mass, the gravitational component of the bandwidth of the IBH transponder is left unused. This economy of bandwidth would give lone particles an immunity to gravity...this could be a result of the IBH not having the power to accomplish the extra load, or a sub-program that determined the smaller particles had no short term consequence on orbiting body dynamics and the mod would allow the extra bandwidth for other functions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted September 28, 2014 Author Share Posted September 28, 2014 In the IBH model of void to chaos to logic to math to us, I can see a correlation of the chaos (unstable values of proto-particles) to the virtual particles of today. This would allow for an efficiency of use of the basic formulations of reality. First using the chaos to generate the next level of reality (logic), and then do double duty as the virtual particles of space today, whatever that ultimate function turns out to be. I presume it may have something to do with the gravity mechanism, which I think may have expressed via the logic function, which went on to "double duty" also, with the expression of mathematics, which is why gravity has a hard time fitting in with the other 3 forces, coming from a prior source... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 What is the IBH model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 do you have an actual model or just an acronym? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 yes, the IBH model is disbursed through several of my thread entries over the last year or so. Search engine hoola and it can be read...the short version is that the void has a single bit of information (that there was one void), that mutated to the chaos, which developed logic, which proscribed the various disciplines of mathematics, which describes this universe with the BB as a physical starting point, or execute function...IBH stands for "informational black hole".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 I will espouse the model if requested in full detail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I will espouse the model if requested in full detail... You will have to if you want anyone to have an idea of what you are talking about. What is the relation between virtual particles and chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Also, can you define what you mean by "chaos"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 ! Moderator Note Threads merged. One thread per topic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted September 30, 2014 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) chaos was produced by the void which has one identifier, that it indeed, it is one void. This is the original " proto-bit" of information. This proto-bit is initiated before the production of logic, therefore there is an impetus without form. This impetus results in the original bit having no particular value, or contantly changing values. As this fragmenting froth (or chaos) of unstable information continues, eventually some proto-bits remain at random to become stable long enough to develop math relations, which, given enough time, will form the basics of logic in the fundamentals of proto-math. Once this logic is established, more proto-information is ordered by this logic to go on to accumulate the various forms and branches of the maths, all occurring within the dimensionless point. Eventually enough information occurs to code for (what will become) mass, then the "informational black hole" appears, as the next step towards actual physical manifestations. The shape of this dimensionless point is spherical, which adds to the basic logic constructions with the algorithm PI, which is delivered through the geometric shape of the sphere, as arranged via the dictates of the newly formed logic . The concordance of the two realms of information go on to develop all the energies / materials eventually to be expressed in the BB, but at present only a description of such (software). As the black hole continues to gain informational mass via the equation of PI results, a description of the hardware to express the software will occur. The completion of this hardware set-function results in the BB, This hardware is perhaps a finite number of universes, ours included. The dark matter is left-over information from the hardware component which may or may not relate to other universes. The virtual particles are left-over information from the still fragmenting chaos...as an analogy to the CMB being a leftover from the BB... Edited September 30, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I'll get my coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you want to discuss science, you need to think of your idea as a constant, with evidence and assertion as directly proportional variables. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're making a lot of claims that sound like a teacher reading from the textbook about already accepted science, rather than speculating on your decidedly non-mainstream idea. This tells us you've already made up your mind that you're right, rather than asking for a review of your idea. Right now, you're using unfamiliar terminology you made up to satisfy what's going on in your head, and it's leaving the rest of us in the dark. In fact, think of your idea as a streetlight; the more you make assertions filled with terms we're not likely to understand, the farther away from the streetlight you're moving, the darker and more unclear you're making your idea. This is inversely proportional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I have repeated several times in the last months of attempted discourse, that I do not think what I am saying is correct. Am I supposed to say " I suppose" or "not barely likely" before each statement? What I am saying is so ridiculous, no serious person would presume otherwise. I say what I am thinking only to start a dialogue of the why anything question...with which I have offered a fairy tale of weak logic to attempt to view the perhaps unknowable pre-big bang scenario. I have stated this IBH model as one possible way that something might come from a supposed void, with all it's obvious weakness. The way I have expressed my thinking is fairly obvious, and just as obviously wrong, but nothing I have said is in anyway difficult to understand. To be specifically saying that mathematics is a contrived substance, ordered about by a logic that was cobbled together in an ad-hoc fashion, from a flimsy assemblage of near nothingness, is annoying to science in general as it subverts the last god standing, Mathematics. And I realize the gaps are all over, mostly in how one level of reality could exist in a strictly theoretical sense, and the eventual outcome is another layer of reality that is slightly "more real". The model predicts with the basic idea that everything evolved from something else, including the sacred cow of mathematics. The only reasonable idea I have heard is from Krauss, who thinks a quantum fluctuation created the universe. Well, what created this quantum fluctuation? And the math that delineates it, and the logic that underpins that math? If they are eternal "givens", then perhaps math is God, In which case I should offer an abrupt apology to the residing Christ...and all his obedient followers. I challenge once again anyone to provide a scenario that goes from the void to the BB without the benefit of hindsight provided by contemporary mathematics... Edited October 1, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 What I am saying is so ridiculous, no serious person would presume otherwise. I wish you had said this in the beginning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) glad to be of service....and I wish someone would offer an alternative to my model that attempts to delineate a process that starts with (one) void and ends with the BB, or asks more specific questions about the way I define terminology within the model. I recently answered specific questions as to the relationship between chaos and virtual particles, and how I define chaos itself. Earlier was a prediction from the model that explains why gravity is somewhat discordant with the other 3 forces as gravity might stem from the logic of mathematics, and the other 3 derive from math itself as a somewhat later manifestation, though closely "related"....perhaps the most difficult thing to grasp is the first postulate, in that the void had a default minimum of information, that of there being "one" void, not 5 or 78 or 2/3 voids. That is the primary theoretical bit of the model. Everything flows from that... it is easily criticized. I don't have a problem with that.... I wait patiently under the "flickering IBH streetlight" , watching a bat emerge from darkness to eat a finite number of hungry moths...*sigh*....now, who took my coat !? Edited October 1, 2014 by hoola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now