It Really is "Turtles all the Way Down".

[Halfcentaur]

My AI told me it's harder to think there could ever have been nothing than to think there needed to be a first cause and it's easier to do what it tells me to do.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Weird, I came in clicking one thread title and came out of another thread.

 

[Toontown]

My AI told me it's harder to think there could ever have been nothing than to think there needed to be a first cause and it's easier to do what it tells me to do.

If that's supposed to be an argument, it is the weakest argument ever conceived. Besides being utterly false. It's far easier to think everything was caused by something else, except, of course, the First Cause, which couldn't have been caused by anything else. So you end up in the same place by a more circuitous route.

There ain't no nothing. Never was.

 

[Halfcentaur]

If that's supposed to be an argument, it is the weakest argument ever conceived. Besides being utterly false. It's far easier to think everything was caused by something else, except, of course, the First Cause, which couldn't have been caused by anything else. So you end up in the same place by a more circuitous route.

There ain't no nothing. Never was.

It's a good thing it's not an argument then.

 

[gerdbonk]

I once sneezed while inhaling and now I was back where I am then.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Weird, I came in clicking one thread title and came out of another thread.

I see what you did there.

 

[Psi Baba]

We all need to yell "WE ARE HERE!" simultaneously to see if we can get the attention of the next universe out.

 

[Toontown]

It's a good thing it's not an argument then.

Hard to tell what anything is around here. Wierd thread. Like a black hole. Go in one end, come out the other, and you're back where you started. But the posts don't come out. Once a post goes in, it never comes out. I could probably break that law though. I could probably put a post in that wouldn't stay in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just thought of something [remember SG's knowledge of this stuff is very limited]. It reminds of of the gap gods or the people who want QM to explain ESP or whatever woo they believe fits. We don't understand what is going on inside a black hole. I know, let's attribute everything we don't know about the Big Bang to the things we don't know about black holes.

Maybe someone can tell me why there is any more to this hypothesis than that.

 

[BenBurch]

We all need to yell "WE ARE HERE!" simultaneously to see if we can get the attention of the next universe out.

Oh, we can hear you, but usually are too busy.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I just thought of something [remember SG's knowledge of this stuff is very limited]. It reminds of of the gap gods or the people who want QM to explain ESP or whatever woo they believe fits. We don't understand what is going on inside a black hole. I know, let's attribute everything we don't know about the Big Bang to the things we don't know about black holes.

Maybe someone can tell me why there is any more to this hypothesis than that.

Try reading the comments following the article at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html

You will be no wiser (certainly I was not ) but it appears to be a topic for discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The comments are consistent with my initial perception.

 

[Cuddles]

All that's really required is a fundamental, timeless Void

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Then all you need is quantum mechanics, which apparently thrives in a Void.

Are you confusing vacuum with your oddly capitalised "void"? Vacuum is very much something and a part of this universe, and quantum mechanics is simply a description of how this universe works (or at least the best we've managed so far). None of that helps in the slightest if you're trying to figure out what might have happened before either the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed, or even simply if anything could have happened or if "before" even makes sense as a concept.

Black holes are finite in size

The universe may well be finite in size. Finite and unbounded, as mentioned in the article, but still finite.

they have event horizons

The event horizon describes the surface which is impossible to cross from inside to out. Ever tried to cross to the outside of the universe?

and at least from the outside would appear to have a middle.

Well, that's part of the weirdness of black holes. Not only do size and time get stretched and squeezed around in regions of high gravity, they can get swapped completely. From the outside, the event horizon of a black hole has a certain spatial position and the centre would be described as simply the spatial centre of the spherical horizon (sticking with simple spherical black holes for now, but the principle would be the same for more complex ones). But from the inside, the event horizon is in the past and the "centre" is in the future. In fact, it turns out to be almost exactly the same as saying the big bang was in the past. From "outside" the universe (if such a thing is actually possible), there could well be a centre of the universe, it's just what would be considered the centre from the outside looks to us as though it's somewhere in the past or future instead. Just like a black hole.

Also, don't they collapse inward, not expand outward?

Not sure what you mean by "collapse" here. During formation of a black hole, yes, matter will collapse down until it lies inside the event horizon. After that point we can't really say what happens to it, although there are various probably unfalsifiable theories (since we can't actually go in and check). Nothing can escape the event horizon, but from the outside it will look essentially the same if it's all compressed to a zero dimensional point or if it's all spread out over the entire volume. All we can see is the gravitational effects, and Gauss's law means those will be the same whatever the mass inside is doing.

However, if you mean they shrink after formation rather than expanding, that depends entirely on the balance between the rate matter falls in and the rate of evaporation by Hawking radiation. Since the rate of evaporation depends inversely on size, black holes larger than a certain size will tend to grow rather than shrink. In terms of universes, that would simply mean that some are small and only last a very short time, while others continue expanding virtually forever.

But the contents of the hole, the mass, is squinched down to a point.

Maybe. Or maybe not. It's a common mistake to assume that a mathematical singularity means that there must be an actual physical singularity. Most of the time it just means the maths we're using simply can't accurately describe what's going on. For example, the big bang theory doesn't say that the universe started out at an infinitely dense, zero dimensional singularity, although it's often incorrectly described as such. What it actually says is that the universe started out in an incredibly small, hot and rapidly expanding state. The singularity before that simply indicates that our understanding of the physics involved is broken and most of the research in the field is trying to come up with a theory that doesn't involve a singularity at all, rather than the pop science view that it's trying to work out what created the singularity.

It's exactly the same for black holes. General relativity doesn't say the mass in a black hole must be compressed down to a point, it says "Oh ****** Infinity! Divide by zero error! Fatal exception in Universe 1.0! Please reboot your maths. Have a nice day.".

 

[Toontown]

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Obviously it's "something" if it is or ever was. Everything is "something". "Nothing" is "something". And it's hardly "adding another turtle" to talk about things that are known to exist (the vacuum, quantum mechanics).

Are you confusing vacuum with your oddly capitalised "void"? Vacuum is very much something and a part of this universe, and quantum mechanics is simply a description of how this universe works (or at least the best we've managed so far).

Yes, if you insist on putting it in that falsely dichotomous and vaguely insulting manner. I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the vacuum and the Void might be one and the same. I'm not the first to do so, and not the first to "oddly capitalize" the "Void" term. I first encountered the term in a Scientific American article back in the '70's.

None of that helps in the slightest if you're trying to figure out what might have happened before either the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed, or even simply if anything could have happened or if "before" even makes sense as a concept.

I'm not trying to figure out what might have happened "before" the vacuum or quantum mechanics existed. I'm simply suggesting that the vacuum and quantum mechanics might be fundamental, and might pre-exist the current spacetime expansion. I have apparently been lured into the misapprehension that this idea is accepted as a possibility in cosmology.

I understand that it is a complete waste of time to discuss such matters here. Such a discussion is clearly a transgression against the sanctity of "skepticism" as practiced by fundamentalist skeptics.

I was temporarily lured into transgression by the thread subject. I'll be moving along now.

 

[The Man]

Which is either nothing or something. Either way, you're just adding another turtle.

Obviously it's "something" if it is or ever was. Everything is "something". "Nothing" is "something". And it's hardly "adding another turtle" to talk about things that are known to exist (the vacuum, quantum mechanics).

Well that's really "the crux of the biscuit" (to quote Frank Zappa). We know that two opposing 'something' result in effectively nothing. Combine +5 volts with -5 volts and get 0 volts, two waves of equal frequency and amplitude yet 180 degrees out of phase, when combined, give no wave as a result. So the strict dichotomy of " either nothing or something" fails except for being in terms of the distribution of opposing 'somethings'. The more evenly distributed these opposing 'somethings' are the more effective 'nothingness' there is. While when more localized we have clear regions of +5 volts or -5 volts, waves at 0 phase or waves at some other phase (like 180) and energy (mass) or gravitational field. To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.

 

[Toontown]

Well that's really "the crux of the biscuit" (to quote Frank Zappa). We know that two opposing 'something' result in effectively nothing. Combine +5 volts with -5 volts and get 0 volts, two waves of equal frequency and amplitude yet 180 degrees out of phase, when combined, give no wave as a result. So the strict dichotomy of " either nothing or something" fails except for being in terms of the distribution of opposing 'somethings'. The more evenly distributed these opposing 'somethings' are the more effective 'nothingness' there is. While when more localized we have clear regions of +5 volts or -5 volts, waves at 0 phase or waves at some other phase (like 180) and energy (mass) or gravitational field. To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.

Oh, you were talking to me. Sorry, I was in a reverie, wondering what it would take to avoid being accused of "adding another turtle" around here. A guy tries to sell us the notion that we are in a black hole, and skates. I take pains to avoid adding a turtle, and immediately get accused of adding a turtle.

What you are talking about is the idea behind the fundamental "Void". When you see an electron and a positron momentarily pop out of the vacuum, know that nature's Big Zero has flashed a smile at you. Go ahead and feel lucky. You've got nothing to lose. You are nothing to lose. Sure, the Void is the most powerful nothing there is and could blow a nonexistent head clean on. But it might be out of bullets.

END PRINT. If I talk about it any more I'll be accused of adding a turtle. I may have already stepped over the line.

 

[Halfcentaur]

When people talk about nothing once precluding something, they're not talking about a void, which seems to be the nothing Lawrence Krauss speaks of. They're talking about actually no thing. I don't think there ever has been no things in that regard.

I don't think Krauss's nothing is the nothing theists speak of when trying to posit a deity with the whole "something cannot come from nothing" argument.

 

[Toontown]

When people talk about nothing once precluding something, they're not talking about a void, which seems to be the nothing Lawrence Krauss speaks of. They're talking about actually no thing. I don't think there ever has been no things in that regard.

I don't think Krauss's nothing is the nothing theists speak of when trying to posit a deity with the whole "something cannot come from nothing" argument.

At the risk of spawning a superfluous turtle:

Obviously, the nothing that something cannot come from is not the same nothing as the nothing that everything can come from.

The existence of something rules out the nothing that something cannot come from. Even if God recycled an already existing something when He made the universe, or conjured it from the nothing that something can come from.

Leaving the nothing we know, which is always better than the nothing we don't know.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

At the risk of spawning a superfluous turtle:

Obviously, the nothing that something cannot come from is not the same nothing as the nothing that everything can come from.

The existence of something rules out the nothing that something cannot come from. Even if God recycled an already existing something when He made the universe, or conjured it from the nothing that something can come from.

Leaving the nothing we know, which is always better than the nothing we don't know.

Yeh. Yeh. Sure. Sure. Except that turtles are not spawned. They are created by proper sex as are you and I.

 

[The Man]

Oh, you were talking to me. Sorry, I was in a reverie, wondering what it would take to avoid being accused of "adding another turtle" around here. A guy tries to sell us the notion that we are in a black hole, and skates. I take pains to avoid adding a turtle, and immediately get accused of adding a turtle.

Well technically I was talking to everyone, which would include you. I don’t know about the ‘selling and skating’ part but if one is going to define just anything as a “turtle” then one really can’t help but add “turtles” when adding, well, anything to the discussion. However I think the original gist of the OP was pretty clear that the turtles were black holes containing universes within black hole containing universe… . So anything else just wouldn’t be a turtle in that regard.

What you are talking about is the idea behind the fundamental "Void". When you see an electron and a positron momentarily pop out of the vacuum, know that nature's Big Zero has flashed a smile at you. Go ahead and feel lucky. You've got nothing to lose. You are nothing to lose. Sure, the Void is the most powerful nothing there is and could blow a nonexistent head clean on. But it might be out of bullets.

Or out of turtles? Hey maybe Super Mario Brothers had something there, shooting turtles?

END PRINT. If I talk about it any more I'll be accused of adding a turtle. I may have already stepped over the line.

Sorry I can’t help much with what others might accuse you of other than to say it wasn’t everyone and if you just want to draw some line so you can step over it that’s entirely up to you. Remember these turtles are black holes so the line would be an event horizon. If you stepped over it we just couldn’t see you on the other side and once you go down that rabbit hole there’s no coming back. So with all the ‘adding turtles’ accusations just flying about every which way from everyone on this thread, if you’re going to stay on this side of the line, “you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"