# Univers Inside a black hole

## Recommended Posts

They gain energy, not mass.I'm not saying SR is nonsense, I'm saying your post is nonsense. You continually attribute things which were never said, so you can argue against them. You seem to have problems actually responding to points made.

• Replies 107
• Created

#### Popular Days

They gain energy, not mass.I'm not saying SR is nonsense, I'm saying your post is nonsense. You continually attribute things which were never said, so you can argue against them. You seem to have problems actually responding to points made.

As I said, go to a particle accelerator, you can test for relative mass increase, and this is because E = Mo*c^2 / (1-c^2/v^2)^(1/2). Energy and mass are directly related, and they only differ by a factor that is related to the ratio between the object's velocity and the speed of light which is why the relative velocity based on kinetic energy affects an object's measured relative mass. You can even see this type of mass-energy equivalence all the time in particle experiments where the energy added to particles via lasers ends up creating more particles. Mass-energy equivalence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

" mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content. For instance, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram, increasing its inertia and weight accordingly, even though no matter has been added."

My last few posts only reflected what is accepted in SR, therefore if you reject the posts, you must reject SR, which means you contradict yourself when you say you reject those posts but not SR. Relative mass increase through velocity increase is accepted in SR, therefore if you accept SR, you must accept relative mass increase through velocity increase.

If anything, it's just the context that has changed, not the validity of the mathematical equation, and for the most part, there's no getting around that, there's no getting around the fact that the correlation of relative mass has been tested to be extremely accurate, even if it can be explained in different contexts even though it still has its place in modern physics

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

"the Higgs field...contains the relative mass in the form of energy. Once the field has endowed a formerly massless particle the particle slows down because it has become heavier."

Which is the specifics of what I already mentioned.

Former pillars of science don't just get "thrown away," they get recycled into current theories.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

Yes md65536, that is exactly what I'm saying. The formation of a black hole depends solely on density. Pack enough mass or energy into a small enough volume and there is no force known which can resist gravitational collapse.

(I should clarify that this should happen in its own frame so as to exclude relativistic effects.)

And Sam, you're still wrong because you don't seem to realise that the particle in your linear accelerator experiences relativistic effects in frames other than its own. In its own frame it doesn't get heavier or shorter and time passes at a 'normal' rate.

##### Share on other sites

it doesn't get heavier or shorter and time passes at a 'normal' rate.

That doesn't entirely matter to other frames, which is why relativity exists. If I'm traveling two miles per hour and I throw a ball ahead of me at 3 miles per hour, some other frame can say the ball is actually traveling around 5 miles per hour. But you also don't seem to realize that I'm agreeing that some component is kept constant in a way that differs from compression due to force in an inertial frame. Mathematically, it is at the very least, the same mass, in a seemingly smaller volume, and there is therefore a relativistic density increase according to the relativistic models, but, the atomic structures themselves also contract by the same factor as the exterior of the near-light ship, thus holding the same proportion of atomic spacial distribution to object volume. It's almost like density is staying the same, but you can still agree that from the outside frame that was previously initially at rest to the ship, the original rest mass of the object didn't decrease, but still appears to be squeezed into a smaller volume.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

Yes md65536, that is exactly what I'm saying. The formation of a black hole depends solely on density. Pack enough mass or energy into a small enough volume and there is no force known which can resist gravitational collapse.

(I should clarify that this should happen in its own frame so as to exclude relativistic effects.)

What relativistic effects are you excluding? Does it depend only on density, independent of relativistic effects? If it were independent of relativistic effects why do you need to exclude them?

Or is it possible that density alone doesn't tell you whether gravitational collapse will occur, allowing density to be different in different frames of reference without implying a collapse in one frame but not another?

Edit: Also, is it the Schwarzschild metric that lets you calculate if a mass will collapse based on its density? And it's the same regardless of charge? Regardless of rotation? Density is really all that matters?

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

The only reason I excluded relativistic effects is as not to lead to more confusion along the lines of Sam Bridge's thinking. The length and mass of a relativistic object don't change in its own frame. The density doesn't change. It does not become a black hole. It doesn't become a black hole in any other frame either.

And of course you're right charge and angular momentum act as modifiers to the gravitational collapse. They also complicate things even further and I didn't mention them. EM repulsion being billions of billions times stronger than gravitational attraction means even a small charge will resist gravitational collapse further than uncharged mass. These properties are conserved by the BH.

But the more I think about it, I realise I could be mistaken.

The density at which the earth becomes a black hole is higher density than the density of the sun where it would become a BH.

As a matter of fact a large enough mass could gravitationally collapse at a density less than water.

Thanks for making me think and keeping me honest.

But the main point I was making to Sam is relativistic speeds and effects DO NOT change density.

Edited by MigL
##### Share on other sites

The length and mass of a relativistic object don't change in its own frame.

No one said it did. But, that doesn't discount what others measure from other frames. If someone says someone else's time slowed down even if that someone else didn't think so, they're both right. Same with anything else related to relativity. The difference is, compression due to force doesn't make the atomic structures appear to contract as well, which is why they get into close enough proximity to each other when compression force is applied in an inertial frame. It's almost right to say density doesn't completely change, but you're still wrong to say the relativistic effect isn't measured. It does have a calculated change, just not in the same way as it would if it were due to compression force.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

The only reason I excluded relativistic effects is as not to lead to more confusion along the lines of Sam Bridge's thinking. The length and mass of a relativistic object don't change in its own frame. The density doesn't change.

Alright I see what you're saying now, but I don't agree with how you're saying it.

With that type of explanation, if someone asks "Can an observer change reference frames by accelerating?" you could explain that if an observer accelerates, an object still remains in its own frame, so no the object's frame doesn't change. That too is true (you don't change an object's reference frame by accelerating another observer) but like length and time and density, it depends on whose frame of reference you're speaking of, and this explanation puts too much emphasis on one frame (the object's) without capturing the essence of relativity, which is that any other frame is equally valid.

The solution to the main problem here isn't that density is invariant (which it isn't), nor that "the object's own frame is the one that's important", but that the relation between density and black hole formation also isn't invariant, so you can't use calculations that apply to one frame (like the object's rest frame) to calculate if an object will collapse using measurements from another frame. I think this is the main point that SamBridge is missing.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

Its not a matter of the object's own frame being preferred over all others, md65536. All frames are equally valid, however if an object doesn't gravitationally collapse in its own frame where relativistic effects are not manifested, then it cannot gravitationally collapse in any other frame where relativistic effects are manifested, either.

It would certainly be a strange world if you could have a black hole in one frame and not in another.

##### Share on other sites

Its not a matter of the object's own frame being preferred over all others, md65536. All frames are equally valid, however if an object doesn't gravitationally collapse in its own frame where relativistic effects are not manifested, then it cannot gravitationally collapse in any other frame where relativistic effects are manifested, either.

That's because when you measure density increase due to compression force, the atomic structures don't contract by the same proportion as the total object volume that is due to the force compression so individual atoms actually end up bumping into each other and feeling a more intense and frequent effect each other's repulsion, whereas with relativistic density increase the atoms don't do this.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

That's because when you measure density increase due to compression force, the atomic structures don't contract by the same proportion as the total object volume that is due to the force compression so individual atoms actually end up bumping into each other and feeling a more intense and frequent effect each other's repulsion, whereas with relativistic density increase the atoms don't do this.

There is no force of compression. The atoms don't get any closer to each other, in their own frame, they don't get any denser.

##### Share on other sites

There is no force of compression. The atoms don't get any closer to each other, in their own frame, they don't get any denser.

You didn't even read what I said which isn't indicative that your points are valid in any way. And it still doesn't matter if they don't get denser in som particular person's own frame because if every physical property that was measured in one frame was indicative of everyone else's measurements, relativity wouldn't exist. It doesn't matter what someone else measures a density or any other physical property to be. Again, it doesn't matter what someone else reports, it only matters what you report, and only you can report for yourself what the density of an object is which is completely irregardless of whatever someone else says it is from their frame, you can't magically be in their frame of reference when you have your own frame. All you've been doing is remained purposely defiant in the face of all the evidence I've presented even without presenting a shred of evidence yourself, or do you think you're too good for evidence and reasoning?

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

ACG52, SamBridge,

The style of this discussion has made some alarms go off in the moderator's coffee corner, and we're a little disturbed by the way this thread is now developing.

ACG52, please take a little extra time to explain yourself better. You give the impression of ignoring people's posts. Sometimes you only have to explain yourself a little better to avoid giving such an impression.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

I"ve got an idea that could explain everything and test it :

- let's say that photon are vector of information

- let's say that in a black hole, because matter go faster than light, photon can only send information backward (to the outside) because matter go to the center faster, creating a "arrow of time" for the matter inside: this arrow of tme would be the inside time swaped with radial space dimension.

- let's say that speed of light is the same everywhere only because photon is the only information vector (therefor it define the ratio between space and time for everything : information exchange is the clock of matter)

- we can now see expansion in a different way : it's an equivalent phenomone that if speed of light was globaly slowing everywhere. (we couldn't tell because speed of light clocks everything else, except speed of matter in the comobile frame)

A photon in the early age of univers, is traveling a lot of comobile distance (like if space was contracted), and now, a lot less comobile distance (space is expanded).

So if it fits with my theory,the shape of the curvature along the radius inside the black hole should be in correlation to the expansion rate variation (in time) of the univers inside : because expansion rate (inside the univers) because curvature set relative speed of photon faster than light, seen from outside the black hole.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Alright I tried following this topic and quite frankly I haven't seen one decent answer. Instead I've read numerous arguments lol. However being that I am new here I will address the original question.

The universe inside a whitehole/blackhole is invalid, it was a model proposal by Poplowskii. The model uses spin and torsion to try to account for a homogeneous and isotropic universe, however it fails to account for early large scale structure formation. However that doesn't stop him from working on it lol...

http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/publications.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587

Not too many professional cosmologists think too highly of his work. Although his metrics are kind of interesting. I read tons of cosmology articles and I can say with confidence that his work is rarely cited.

-particularly since his models is also a counter to inflation models. Inflation has too strong of supportive evidence, particulary since they may have found evidence of gravity waves in the CMB. The planck papers also support inflation models with a higher observation agreement towards the single scalar models with low kinetic term. The best fit to observations is the LambdaCDM model. Which is essentially the hot big bang model with cold(non relativistic) dark matter. The hot big bang beginning does not describe the beginning of the universe, it only describes a hot dense state from 10-42 sec forward. The early timeline is based on our understanding of symmetry breaking temperature correlations of particle physics. Essentially when a particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium. Prior to that time our knowledge of physics breaks down.

Anyways another key note on blackholes, they do not feed at consistent rates, so if we were inside one. Shouldn't we also measure varying energy-density distributions in the CMB or within the IGM (Intergalactic medium)? We don't overall the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (Homogeneous no preferred location)(isotropic no preferred direction). This is also why the big bang is not the result of some explosion from some infinitely dense god particle. Multimedia loves to show that analogy lol. The misiscule point described is the start of our lightcone (region of shared causality) In simpler words our observable universe. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinte. We have no means of measuring beyond the cosmic event horizon, so we make no statements about that region, other than we have no reason to think it will be any different than our observable. Now here is some related articles

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

my website also has links to professional articles (Non pop media, peer reviewed articles) designed to teach cosmology to the new student, feel free to browse the site, it also includes some textbook style (free Official open source articles)

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Hi Mordred,

Welcome to SFN. Just a small reminder of the forum rules, which state that the use of threads to advertise is prohibited. If your website is purely noncommercial, then you are welcome to include it in your signature or profile, but please do not simply advertise it in other threads unless the part of the website you're linking to is there as supporting information for your post.

##### Share on other sites

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219

whats in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

!

Moderator Note

Hi Mordred,

Welcome to SFN. Just a small reminder of the forum rules, which state that the use of threads to advertise is prohibited. If your website is purely noncommercial, then you are welcome to include it in your signature or profile, but please do not simply advertise it in other threads unless the part of the website you're linking to is there as supporting information for your post.

no problem it is non commercial so I will add it to my signature just as oon as I find out how lol

##### Share on other sites

Alright I tried following this topic and quite frankly I haven't seen one decent answer. Instead I've read numerous arguments lol. However being that I am new here I will address the original question.

The universe inside a whitehole/blackhole is invalid, it was a model proposal by Poplowskii. The model uses spin and torsion to try to account for a homogeneous and isotropic universe, however it fails to account for early large scale structure formation. However that doesn't stop him from working on it lol...

http://www.nikodempoplawski.com/publications.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587

I don't get your argument. In my theory, each sphere in the black hole represent holographic version of a comobile moment in the inner univers. So the spherical symmetry is the explanation for isotropie. How could it fail ? The surface of a sphere inside the black is not the volume of the inner universe, but the holographic projection of its content. Holographic projection is not a simple topological projection.

Although, I thought early large scale formation was explain by black matter. Inflation is the theory built to explain isotropy.

Inflation is said to occure long before dark matter starts to create cold gas flows. CWB emitted during recombination, reflects not inflation, but cold dark matter effect on matter, that are suppose to be added to the isotropic flat space. Thus, isotropy/inflation are not yet explained.

In fact, one of the issue with inflation, is that any quantic explanation of it, would make its isotropy highly unlikely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Fine-tuning_problem).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Matter_domination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9BCDM

-particularly since his models is also a counter to inflation models. Inflation has too strong of supportive evidence, particulary since they may have found evidence of gravity waves in the CMB. The planck papers also support inflation models with a higher observation agreement towards the single scalar models with low kinetic term. The best fit to observations is the LambdaCDM model. Which is essentially the hot big bang model with cold(non relativistic) dark matter. The hot big bang beginning does not describe the beginning of the universe, it only describes a hot dense state from 10-42 sec forward. The early timeline is based on our understanding of symmetry breaking temperature correlations of particle physics. Essentially when a particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium. Prior to that time our knowledge of physics breaks down.

My idea doesn't reject the inflation : it (tries to) explain it. The curvature of space in the black hole define the comobile speed of light. Comobile speed of light is equivalent to the very definition of expansion. The inflation is a short ultra fast expansion at the begining, it seems to me it fit perfectly with the black hole suddent formation. Indeed, when black hole are created, the mass of the star is first converted. So curvature is very indeed great from the start.

Gravity waves could also be correlated to the fine shape of the black hole first formation during the collapse of the star (I read it has been simulated).

You speak about inflation has a fact, and I deeply agree with the facts, but inflation causes are not explained yet. The last theorical explanation was the metastability of energy states of the Higgs fields. (but now there's no clear explanation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Theoretical_status

Anyways another key note on blackholes, they do not feed at consistent rates, so if we were inside one. Shouldn't we also measure varying energy-density distributions in the CMB or within the IGM (Intergalactic medium)? We don't overall the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (Homogeneous no preferred location)(isotropic no preferred direction). This is also why the big bang is not the result of some explosion from some infinitely dense god particle. Multimedia loves to show that analogy lol. The misiscule point described is the start of our lightcone (region of shared causality) In simpler words our observable universe. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinte. We have no means of measuring beyond the cosmic event horizon, so we make no statements about that region, other than we have no reason to think it will be any different than our observable. Now here is some related articles

As I said, In my idea, time inside the black hole is absolutly not related to time outside, except that when the black hole grow, timeline get longer.

Another thing, is I don't suppose matter that fall into the black hole to stay in the same radial area of it.

When matter falls into a black hole, most trajectories are elliptics. More, because black hole are suppose to hide information, it mean that for outside point of view, any structure falling into the blackhole, therefor any position on the sphere, is undefined. In other words : matter inside the black hole has no position on the spheres seen from outside.

It fits with the holographic principle : matter described by holographic theory in described only in terme of information (it's Kolmogorov complexity of the content that is proportionnal to the surface). So it's very different to its spatial structure as we would describe it.

Matter would not be randomly sprayed on the surface, and it would not have effects on matter repartition in the inner univers, because black hole surface would not be a bijective representation of the inner space. (also you can't simply fit an empty 3d volume on a 2d surface). In the process, I suppose matter would equaly add complexity to the inner univers.

Here I never suppose a correlation between space of the inner univers and the spatial description of concentric sphericals surfaces inside the black holes.

A (suprisingly) more accurate description of my theory is as if inner univers would be inside a black hole like a fictionnal univers is in a video DVD. Think of a DVD : it contains information compressed about a physical description of a story. Datas are compressed. Timeline is indeed physicaly coded in the DVD along its furrow, but space isn't at all. And timeline of the fictionnal univers is not orderable with our time. At any time for us, each time of the inner univers exist. It's the meaning of what I call "frozen time", and it's consistent with a "c" lorentz transformation.

So when the black hole gets more matter, it's like if the story of the univers inside is written. None of the observators in it would have any information about the writing process, the same way characters in a fictionnal univers can't tell when or how their story is written. (you can always create a sequel to a DVD at any time, with no effect on story timeline)

I've read an intersting article recently : topological structure of univers is not proven or disproven, since we only still see a part of the univers (the osbervable univers) so we can't argu about it to be finite or infinite. (univers could still be an closed hypertorus, without curvature) In this theory, it is finite.

In fact, I made the suposition that cone of light from our point of view is space time cone for the inner univers, but, I suppose it's much more complicated, for instance : light paths are describe by quantum mechanics.

If we try to describe topological trajectories of photons, because they travel at the speed of light, it is not a "cone" from their own point of view. Photon are also frozen in time during their travel. According to SR, if you were a quantic photon (because dt=0), you would simultenously be at every point of the light cone (in futur), for the photon, the cone is a point.

If we agree that holographic description of matter is about information, the links between photon start and arrival could be very different seen from inside, or outside. The frozen time suppose that time/distance has no direct relationship between inside and outside.

So I don't know how to describe the repartition of matter on the holographic surfaces, but It seems to me that it can still be not a simple topological projection of the 3d space at all.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

see here is the problem, this Is your theory. I teach standard cosmology according to the concordance model. When your theory reaches a professional peer reviewed paper. I'll happily look it over, til then good luck.

by the way what you described makes absolutey no sense and I have a PhD.

##### Share on other sites

Here is somethings that made me think of that :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25472-turbulent-black-holes-grow-fractal-skins-as-they-feed.html#.U2o4tfl_u6U

As you see, the fractal aspect implies that inner univers can be physicaly represented in a specific way.

For some global reason, I think inner univers should exist in ours in form of information rather than matter.

It's very hypothetical, but I thaugh of a describtion of matter structures in termes of layers of complexity : things that atomicly exists as arrangement of underlaying things (Particles form molecules, molecules form living cells, cells form organisms).

The difference between levels is the difference between information and matter that holds it. In this theory, things tends to accumulate information that define their behavior (their physicial reactions) and can ultimatly be a "simulated" version of univers (atoms reemission fonction is linked to the zeta function, DNA contain adaptation to physical conditions, and mind contains ideas). I mean that structures tend to acquier algoritm of behavior that react to the rest of univers, and so become a simulated version of it.

In that scale, astronomical object are at low levels of complexity, but they still can hold different levels of information, and black hole would be seen as some astronomical computers.
I know at this point, its close to SF, but i can't reject the idea just because it seems weird.

I'm not a professionnal scientist, and i'm not good enough in math to write a paper.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

There is an expression you should try "If you wish to change the rules you should first understand the rules" First off information of a particle in QM is a particles spin, momentum and energy. So a new model needs to be able to comply with that. Your model alters the behavior of time, so now you have to redefine the scale factor of the FRW metric. A multi spacial dimension of influence outside of the 3+1 dimensions described by the Einstein field equations and FRW metric would redefine those very metrics as well. String theory does so, however shows the metrics as to how it is compatible with the previous priori. Any metric ued must be compatible with QM, the EFE and the FRW metrics. These metrics are fundamental to any descriptive of the Universe. All professional model proposols use various mean to make their model compatible with the priori I described. Including the universe within a black hole models. Some are merely a mathematical misinterpretation of the Scwartzchild metric. Poplowskii adds a new term to replace the comological constant (torsion).

My advise is study the FRW metric and Einstein field equations. Learn the basics first, once you do you will understand why your model won't work.

By the way learning comology from the internet is a very bad idea. I recommend picking up a textbook. "Introductory to Cosmology" by Barbera Ryden is a nce beginner textbook with relatively easy math requirement. She sticks primarily to the FRW metric which people find easier to learn than the Einstein field equations. Scott Dodelson's Modern Cosmology takes more time to learn as it is written primarily using the EFE.

##### Share on other sites

There is an expression you should try "If you wish to change the rules you should first understand the rules" First off information of a particle in QM is a particles spin, momentum and energy. So a new model needs to be able to comply with that. Your model alters the behavior of time, so now you have to redefine the scale factor of the FRW metric.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean but, I'll try to answer.

I understand (at least a bit) the FRW equation that rely matter density and space time evolution. It's a global representation of effect of gravity to spacetime and vice-versa. And so it explain weather the space is going to accelerate or slow down and reverse into a big crunch. It's not as complicated as it seems : it is simply the equilibrium between gravitionnal force and expansion.

But my model purely relativist about the meaning of space and time : the projection of the inner univers is not time orderer with ours. Spatial projection is undefined.

The law of physics of the inner univers are here unknown (maybe supposed to be similar to ours). The space projection is not topological simple. It's not only the FRW scale that is different. Position of matter inside the black is for us undefined / or it has a different meaning that if it was seen from the inside univers.

I mean there is no relationship between inner position (the metric of the inner univers) and outer position (sphere horizon in black hole, if we suppose matter is in a physical state), except that inner time dimention is supposed to be along the radiuses from our point of view. So if I suppose scale is related to curvature, I don't suppose anything about how this scale is seen from the inside.

I never supposed any other dimension (like in string theory).

I have the feeling you still try to define the metric of the inner univers.

I mean, if you want to fit a 3D univers (at a comobile moment) inside a 2d sphere (at equipotential or curvature) inside the black hole. So I fully agree, that space just can't be a simple projection or a continuous metric has defined by general relativity (which is just the sum of curvatures). The holographic principle only says that content of information in matter is proportionnal to its surface (matter can be of any structure). The ways matter is projected into the surface is absolutly not trivial : we just know that the quantity of information fits in it. I mean it can't be define geometricaly by any metrics.

The intersting point here is that holographic principle set a swap between different laws. Gravitationnal and thermodynamic laws could be swaped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity). So what we call general relativity in the inner univers may be a different set of law for the inner univers, because matter would be arranged differently.

It's just like the DVD : when you see a tree fall in a movie as part of the inner rules and laws of the story, it is absolutly not related in any way to the physics of the DVD itself has a solid object.

If you swap time and space in equation, you get a totally different meaning for almost all laws. I don't know at all how to do that

I just supposed that if somehow, FRW (in fact, real observed spacetime curvature and expansion description, not FRW) could be correlated to curvature inside the black hole, it would be a good indication.

I was just wondering if there was some way to test it or something..

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Ok lets start with curvature, I wrote and article on it in my webpage, see the cosmology101 signature link. Read the Universe geometry article. The metrics is done according to the FRW metrics, much of the work is referenced to Barbera Ryden's work. Simply as her methodology is one of the best and easiest handling's of the FRW metrics in relation to universe geometry I've come across. I've read and own over 16 Cosmology textbooks, her method is still the tops for that. I have some metric corrections to make on the Redshift and expansion article, those corrections is on defining proper vs conformal and com moving distances. However that article is also a good read. Overall its accurate. There is numerous other article you may be interested in. The only two articles I wrote are under site links heading. The rest are all professional papers. Once you read the universe geometry article you will understand how the torus for example is only definable as homogeneous and isotropic at certain and specific locations. The universe according to WMAP and PLANCK data is close to flat

or rather the universe geometry according to their observations an measurements of the CMB show the geometry as close to flat.

Reading your last post more accurately, I would recommend studying the general relativity article by Mathius Blau.

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

This article however is math intense, but it shows all the various treatments of GR according to geometry relations with matter

Unfortunately I don't have any good articles covering the holographic principle. The expression "If you wish to change the rules " means that you need to correctly understand the models your trying to refer to and adapt to your model. You simply cannot properly do so unless you can properly explain the relations to those models. Unfortunately in order to do that you have to relate to their metrics. A simple verbal descriptive is never sufficient. For example which GR metrics does your model comply with ?

now you keep referring to the holographic universe, this is a string theory model......

The holographic principle and its realization in string theory through the AdS/CFT correspondence have helped elucidate the mysteries of back holes suggested by Hawking's work and are believed to provide a resolution of the black hole information paradox.

for that you can study the "Fields" article, it has the Ads/CFT metrics covered inside however its 885 pages long

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

##### Share on other sites

Ok lets start with curvature, I wrote and article on it in my webpage, see the cosmology101 signature link. Read the Universe geometry article. The metrics is done according to the FRW metrics, much of the work is referenced to Barbera Ryden's work. Simply as her methodology is one of the best and easiest handling's of the FRW metrics in relation to universe geometry I've come across. I've read and own over 16 Cosmology textbooks, her method is still the tops for that. I have some metric corrections to make on the Redshift and expansion article, those corrections is on defining proper vs conformal and com moving distances. However that article is also a good read. Overall its accurate. There is numerous other article you may be interested in. The only two articles I wrote are under site links heading. The rest are all professional papers. Once you read the universe geometry article you will understand how the torus for example is only definable as homogeneous and isotropic at certain and specific locations. The universe according to WMAP and PLANCK data is close to flat

or rather the universe geometry according to their observations an measurements of the CMB show the geometry as close to flat.

Reading your last post more accurately, I would recommend studying the general relativity article by Mathius Blau.

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

This article however is math intense, but it shows all the various treatments of GR according to geometry relations with matter

Unfortunately I don't have any good articles covering the holographic principle. The expression "If you wish to change the rules " means that you need to correctly understand the models your trying to refer to and adapt to your model. You simply cannot properly do so unless you can properly explain the relations to those models. Unfortunately in order to do that you have to relate to their metrics. A simple verbal descriptive is never sufficient. For example which GR metrics does your model comply with ?

now you keep referring to the holographic universe, this is a string theory model......

The holographic principle and its realization in string theory through the AdS/CFT correspondence have helped elucidate the mysteries of back holes suggested by Hawking's work and are believed to provide a resolution of the black hole information paradox.

for that you can study the "Fields" article, it has the Ads/CFT metrics covered inside however its 885 pages long

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

Thanks for the links, I think we don't understand each others. In my idea the outer "metrics" describing the black hole is the regular GR metrics I guess. I don't need a cours about general relativity, I think I understand it well enough.

[space time is curved by density of energy/matter, meaning that futur cone of objects are rotated : the frame is changed, as if it was any acceleration : it's the equivalence principle. I understand that curvature of space is describe by a matrix (like any curved space, it define the distortion of length/frame change), and the matrix is given by density of matter). I understand that black hole horizon is equivalent to the object moving at speed of light. It's futur cone is contained inside the black hole (also it's more complicated because it's 4d).

And here it's not even relevant with my theory. In my idea matters falls into black hole and stay here in a state undefined. I just suppose here that it form a inner univers, but not any geometrical relationship with ours. I spoke about computer : for all I know, matter could become somehow a closed circuit hosting an algoritm, that would simulate the inner univers. The shape of the circuit is absolutly not related to the shape of the content it simulates. I just supposed that "laws" could be seen as swaped, and time would become described as space dimension along the radiuses.

It inner univers is NOT described geometricaly, so it has NO metrics from our point of view. The same matter (that is here) is seen differently. If its in a form of a univers, it's spatial structure can NOT be simply related inside from outside.

I suppose the inner univers (seen from inside) is a "regular" univers just like ours. But I also supposed the way it is projected inside the black hole can not be describe by general relativity. I don't understand why you insist about the metric. I don't see what's the point.

I don't make any supposition about the inner univers metrics, meaning, I don't define its geometry. At least I don't define its geometry in relation to the black hole geometry. I don't describe how the inner space is "folded" into the black hole, how distance are changed or so. In fact, I assume, it's not "topologicaly folded". So I assume their is NO simple correlation inside from outside. I don't even try to describe the inner univers metrics. I say, there's no point of trying to do so.

It's like the DVD. The position of the information is along the furrow. for us, when you have the DVD in hand, you can tell where a moment in the movie is : It's given by a simple spiral equation that give the position of the bits on the furrow. But, it's absolutly not related to the position of the object described by the movie it contains. I said : we don't know what's in the movie, we don't have any clue about it's own metrics or even laws.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

then what information are you describing????? Define information according to your model.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2739v3.pdf "Quantum mechanics emerges from information theory applied to causal horizons." looks to me that GR metrics do apply as well as QFT.

Edited by Mordred

## Create an account

Register a new account