Marc L
Thread Killer
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,739
Unless the OP was using "created" in the metaphoric, as opposed to the literal sense.
Marc
Unless the OP was using "created" in the metaphoric, as opposed to the literal sense.
Marc
Captain Trips
Scholar
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Messages
- 99
Here's my understanding of what we know:
There was once a universe. In this universe were things called "black holes." Black holes exhibit what is called "Hawking Radiation" which effectively causes them to lose mass. Once they lose enough mass, they no longer have the necessary mass to stay a black hole, so they explode.
With me so far?
Now, when a black hole explodes, lots of things happen, but the biggest is that a lot of energy is liberated. The very laws of physics are twisted to their limits. Time itself acts funny. And, in that mess of space/time/energy/matter, a LOT can happen in a very tiny amount of time. And that's where we are -- inside one of those black holes that exists in another universe, one that is "over" ours. This explosion is probably only taking a few seconds before it settles down and stops exploding. But since time itself acts wonky, inside that mess it can seem to last for billions of years. And until it all settles down, there is still an event horizon beyond which nothing can travel. This black hole's event horizon is the "edge" of our universe.
Within our universe, there are black holes exploding. We call them "quasars." And within each of these is no doubt another entire universe, no doubt with inhabitants asking "what started our universe?" And our universe exists in another universe, and that probably within another, etc., ad infinitum. So it is possible to say there was something before our universe, outside our universe, and separate from our universe -- all at the same time. Infinity contains infinite possibilities! (Heck, it is even possible that, someday, we will be able to create black holes -- and if they are "quantum black holes" that will explode under some observation, then wouldn't it be fair to say that we created a whole universe? Does that make us God to that universe? Or just an experimental scientist who has no idea what he's done?) (Or am I just a mindless philosopher who will be amongst those first up against the wall when the revolution comes?)
There was once a universe. In this universe were things called "black holes." Black holes exhibit what is called "Hawking Radiation" which effectively causes them to lose mass. Once they lose enough mass, they no longer have the necessary mass to stay a black hole, so they explode.
With me so far?
Now, when a black hole explodes, lots of things happen, but the biggest is that a lot of energy is liberated. The very laws of physics are twisted to their limits. Time itself acts funny. And, in that mess of space/time/energy/matter, a LOT can happen in a very tiny amount of time. And that's where we are -- inside one of those black holes that exists in another universe, one that is "over" ours. This explosion is probably only taking a few seconds before it settles down and stops exploding. But since time itself acts wonky, inside that mess it can seem to last for billions of years. And until it all settles down, there is still an event horizon beyond which nothing can travel. This black hole's event horizon is the "edge" of our universe.
Within our universe, there are black holes exploding. We call them "quasars." And within each of these is no doubt another entire universe, no doubt with inhabitants asking "what started our universe?" And our universe exists in another universe, and that probably within another, etc., ad infinitum. So it is possible to say there was something before our universe, outside our universe, and separate from our universe -- all at the same time. Infinity contains infinite possibilities! (Heck, it is even possible that, someday, we will be able to create black holes -- and if they are "quantum black holes" that will explode under some observation, then wouldn't it be fair to say that we created a whole universe? Does that make us God to that universe? Or just an experimental scientist who has no idea what he's done?) (Or am I just a mindless philosopher who will be amongst those first up against the wall when the revolution comes?)
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Too much certainty.
l0rca
I know so much karate
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,100
Why would anyone believe Hawking these days? He's following contradicting theories to their extreme conclusions. The conclusions are ingenious, yes, but flawed at their core. Having another explain to you how the universe began with "according to general relativity and quantum mechanics..." is almost as bad as nodding along to the Ekpyrotic Universe.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Just curious. Do you have problems with the Ekpyrotic Universe itself or M Theory?
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Since Daryl17 has not been back to explain his position...
l0rca
I know so much karate
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,100
I'm not sure what you mean by problems.
I love the math and the people working on it. I love the directions it's exploring. I really want to see a giant step towards the TOE come out of it. Every time I think about that new atom smasher they're building I get a little excited. Then, you know, "but". I think it's going to go through a large number of changes before anything physical manifests itself.
I consider all its work meaningful, but I don't want to draw conclusions purely based on math. High-level mathematical models have failed in the past and they still might.
I love the math and the people working on it. I love the directions it's exploring. I really want to see a giant step towards the TOE come out of it. Every time I think about that new atom smasher they're building I get a little excited. Then, you know, "but". I think it's going to go through a large number of changes before anything physical manifests itself.
I consider all its work meaningful, but I don't want to draw conclusions purely based on math. High-level mathematical models have failed in the past and they still might.
Captain Trips
Scholar
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Messages
- 99
Yes, many of Hawking's theories are "out there," but I have yet to see anything contradicting his theory of radiating black holes. Yes, he has admitted that the "all information is lost" concept is right after all, but this does not refute "Hawking radiation." And do you have a better explanation of distant quasars? Because, as I understand it, his theories about "exploding black holes" are the best fitting to the observational phenomena. (Of course, we'll know better when the super-conducting super collider at CERN is completed.)
l0rca
I know so much karate
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,100
I only read that one book of his, and it was a while ago.
I could point to String Theory as a way to explain Hawking Radiation, but in my opinion I would only be replacing one temporary theory with another, and I can't be sure which is more accurate. Which brings me to why I disagree with you: I don't think you can be justifiably sure which is more accurate either.
I hold all present theories at bay when it comes to being confident about the beginning of the Universe.
Nitpick: the collider at CERN is the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). The SSC is a failed project for a linear collider in the US (funding was cut, with much of the tunnel already dug and 2 thousand million dollars spent).
CurtC
Illuminator
I've not heard that - can you provide a cite? Hawking radiation would cause a black hole to very slowly evaporate, but I'm not aware of any limit under which a black hole would no longer be stable. The stuff I've read indicates that the radiation would go much faster as the BH mass goes to zero, so at the point when its mass is a small fraction of a gram, it would be gone in a poof.
Is there something I can read about the idea that quasars are exploding black holes?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
If I am right, they are new black holes at the center of new galaxies in the new universe.
To tell you the truth, with the special theory of relativity, nothing can reach the light of light, so even a black hole with all its mass never truly generates gravity that will completely stop light to begin with.
Paul
You've confused a series of concepts. A quasar is not an exploding black hole. It's a region of super dense matter that looks like a black hole. Matter falling into this object heats up becomes extremely bright and we can observe that matter for a while, despite distances of billions of light years, through sensitive telescopes.
A black hole, as a theoretical object in general relativity, cannot exist in the real world. From the perspective of matter forming a black hole, the process appears to take a finite amount of time, but from an external perspective this process takes an infinite amount of time. Similarly, if you had an event horizon, an object falling into it takes a finite amount of time from the perspective of the object, but from a perspective not moving into the black hole the object takes an infinite amount of time to fall in. Since we have not had an infinite amount of time, we neither have event horizons nor black holes.
Exploding black holes, in theory, contain less mass than an asteroid when they go. Quasars, on the other hand, contain billions of solar masses; and according to theory, it'll take a good long while before they evaporate.