It Really is "Turtles all the Way Down".

[zeggman]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ah, youngster, you have much to learn. At one time people said the World could not be round for similar reasons and lack of understanding.

Study. Learn. The Universe is a very interesting place.

 

[Toontown]

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.

In that regard, I said it is unnecessary to posit black holes as baby universe eggs, pointed to the enmeshed paradox, and pointed to an actual observed phenomenon (virtual particles from the vacuum), demonstrating an observed behavior of nature as an alternative way out of the paradox.

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.

Not at all. I was trying to herd the OP back over the line he had stepped over.

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?"

Yeah. I feel real lucky. I've already pointed out that the black hole = universe hypo is a non-explanatory paradox-spawning turtle-adder, which, in anything other than a toon thread, would have killed it. But in the toon thread, the hypo never noticed it got hit. Eventually it might see the gaping hole and drop dead. But it is unlikely to see the hole in it's forehead. In any case, the hole will have magically disappeared the next time the hypo appears in a toon thread.

 

[zeggman]

Ah, youngster, you have much to learn. At one time people said the World could not be round for similar reasons and lack of understanding.

Study. Learn. The Universe is a very interesting place.

I have plenty to study and learn without wasting time on useless nonsense.

The universe has billions of years to develop; I do not.

But thanks for addressing each of the objections I raised with such insight.

 

[The Man]

In that regard, I said it is unnecessary to posit black holes as baby universe eggs, pointed to the enmeshed paradox, and pointed to an actual observed phenomenon (virtual particles from the vacuum), demonstrating an observed behavior of nature as an alternative way out of the paradox.

Probably why I said…

So anything else just wouldn’t be a turtle in that regard.

And before that…

To put it in terms of eastern philosophies it actually seems more like just Yin and Yang than Turtles all the way down.

Not at all. I was trying to herd the OP back over the line he had stepped over.



Yeah. I feel real lucky. I've already pointed out that the black hole = universe hypo is a non-explanatory paradox-spawning turtle-adder, which, in anything other than a toon thread, would have killed it. But in the toon thread, the hypo never noticed it got hit. Eventually it might see the gaping hole and drop dead. But it is unlikely to see the hole in it's forehead. In any case, the hole will have magically disappeared the next time the hypo appears in a toon thread.

Glad to hear it and as I’ve already pointed out that without the actual quantum gravity details worked out both the explanatory power or “paradox-spawning turtle-adder” nature of “the black hole = universe hypo” are purely speculative at best. Heck speculation can still be fun though , by going either way on a whim or just going all ‘toonish’ if desired.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have plenty to study and learn without wasting time on useless nonsense.

The universe has billions of years to develop; I do not.

But thanks for addressing each of the objections I raised with such insight.

OK. If you really would like me to.

Seems nonsensical on the face of it.

And you got your degree in Physics from which university?

The universe is incomprehensibly big,

It is big. Just because you cannot get your head around its bigness is your problem. You do not speak for everyone.

black holes are not.

This depends on your yardstick. The theory referenced in this thread would make such a statement moot.

[/quote]The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not.[/quote]

Ah. so you don't have a degree in Physics. The Universe is chock full of stuff.

I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible,

Try harder. You admit to disputing something you don't understand. Sorry you don't care.

as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does. Most of 20th and 21st Century Physics "makes no sense what-so-ever". Yet, apparently, your computer works. Curious.

I was not attempting to be nasty to you. Just helpful.

 

[zeggman]

OK. If you really would like me to.

That would be nice, actually.

And you got your degree in Physics from which university?

You are correct in your snarkiness. I do not have a degree in Physics.

It is big. Just because you cannot get your head around its bigness is your problem. You do not speak for everyone.

What a relief.

This depends on your yardstick. The theory referenced in this thread would make such a statement moot.

How so?

The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not.

Ah. so you don't have a degree in Physics. The Universe is chock full of stuff.

Perhaps. I assume you mean shimmering quanta here, but somehow even with all these virtual particles popping in and out of existence the rivers stay in their beds rather than materializing in streams between the earth and the moon. Bags of gold stay locked in underground seams rather than beaming themselves under my pillow. Mostly, "matter" stays where it's been in the past, and "empty space" stays where it's been. So I stand behind my physics-degree-lacking statement. Feel free to mock some more without actually addressing the objection, because since you (I assume) have a physics degree (excuse me, a Physics degree) and I do not, there is really no hope of actually explaining why I'm wrong in a way which I could comprehend.

Try harder. You admit to disputing something you don't understand. Sorry you don't care.

Sorry you don't. I gave the basis for my dispute. So far, your response has been to tap your diploma and cluck your tongue. Fair enough, but don't pretend you're actually contributing substance to the discussion.

Yes it does. Most of 20th and 21st Century Physics "makes no sense what-so-ever". Yet, apparently, your computer works. Curious.

The 20th and 21st Century Physics (do you always speak in headlines?) which doesn't make sense is not what powers my computer. Maybe someday we'll be calculating in qubits, and I'm happy that research is proceeding, but my computer runs on garden-variety electronics, which is quite sensible. Curious.

I was not attempting to be nasty to you. Just helpful.

It seems more nasty than helpful, but that's probably just degree envy or something. I don't see you attempting much in the way of actual explanation, but I do see lots of "respect my authoritay" which, sorry, I don't. If you have some facts, or even some helpful analogies, I could probably muster some respect for those.

 

[sol invictus]

Black holes are round (the non-spinning ones, at least), like basketballs. They have a center and an edge (the event horizon).

The universe, as far as we can tell, has no center and no edge. Every point is equivalent to every other point. On that basis alone, the universe is not a black hole, or inside a black hole.

As for the fact that the universe has the right density to be a black hole the size of the cosmological horizon, that's not a coincidence - it's a consequence of Einstein's equations - but it's because both black holes and expanding universes are solutions to the same set of equations, not because they are the same solution (they're not).

 

[Puppycow]

This theory reminds me of the theory that we might just be a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, etc.

I don't have much use for such theories.

The problem with the simulation theory is that we never find any bugs in the program. In The Matrix there were occasionally small bugs, which gave a hint that it was actually a simulation and not real.

I'm not very interested in unfalsifiable theories which make no testable predictions. Does theory that there's a universe in every black hole make any testable predictions?

 

[zeggman]

From the article linked in the OP, it seemed that space-time "torque" (or "twist" or "torsion" - I don't recall the novel jargon the author used) predicted that galaxies on one side of the universe would spin one way and those on the other would spin the other way, which fit (he said) what we observe. Or maybe it didn't so much predict it as explain it. I don't recall, from my cursory reading, any testable prediction (e.g., the speed and distribution of these twirling galaxies), but I don't have a physics degree so I may have missed something obvious.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That would be nice, actually.


You are correct in your snarkiness. I do not have a degree in Physics.


What a relief.


How so?


Perhaps. I assume you mean shimmering quanta here, but somehow even with all these virtual particles popping in and out of existence the rivers stay in their beds rather than materializing in streams between the earth and the moon. Bags of gold stay locked in underground seams rather than beaming themselves under my pillow. Mostly, "matter" stays where it's been in the past, and "empty space" stays where it's been. So I stand behind my physics-degree-lacking statement. Feel free to mock some more without actually addressing the objection, because since you (I assume) have a physics degree (excuse me, a Physics degree) and I do not, there is really no hope of actually explaining why I'm wrong in a way which I could comprehend.


Sorry you don't. I gave the basis for my dispute. So far, your response has been to tap your diploma and cluck your tongue. Fair enough, but don't pretend you're actually contributing substance to the discussion.


The 20th and 21st Century Physics (do you always speak in headlines?) which doesn't make sense is not what powers my computer. Maybe someday we'll be calculating in qubits, and I'm happy that research is proceeding, but my computer runs on garden-variety electronics, which is quite sensible. Curious.


It seems more nasty than helpful, but that's probably just degree envy or something. I don't see you attempting much in the way of actual explanation, but I do see lots of "respect my authoritay" which, sorry, I don't. If you have some facts, or even some helpful analogies, I could probably muster some respect for those.

If you don't know or don't understand, try asking rather than just saying you are ignorant and want to stay that way. I posted in my OP a reference to an interesting speculative article that I questioned and gave a joking title. I claimed no superior knowledge; nor yet do I have any.

It has generated a bunch of comments -- some informed and some funny.

Usually, at some point in a thread like this, someone like sol invictus will show up and many of us will learn something.

You might also look at: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

 

[zeggman]

If you don't know or don't understand, try asking rather than just saying you are ignorant and want to stay that way.

That's not what I did. I stated a couple of objections, and confessed that I wouldn't be able to understand a mathematical explanation of why my objections were misplaced. This was an implied suggestion to anyone who wanted to address my objections that I would prefer a non-mathematical explanation. If nothing but mathematics could explain it, too bad for me.

I posted in my OP a reference to an interesting speculative article that I questioned and gave a joking title. I claimed no superior knowledge; nor yet do I have any.

Surely your degree in physics gives you such knowledge.

Usually, at some point in a thread like this, someone like sol invictus will show up and many of us will learn something.

He's stated a different physical-not-mathematical objection to the theory. I don't see a condescending follow-up from you to his post.

You might also look at: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

I've followed your suggestion, but I've been unable to confirm the claims which PBS is making there. In fact, at this site, and specifically at this link, it says:

In 1932 Wilson also tried to explain the one-way current flow in a point-contact rectifier (1874 Milestone) as due to quantum-mechanical tunneling from metal to semiconductor - or vice-versa. But along with similar attempts from other scientists in the early 1930s, his explanation eventually proved wrong.

Satisfactory explanations of rectification finally emerged in 1938. Boris Davydov at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, Nevill Mott at Bristol University, England, and Walter Schottky at Siemens and Halske in Munich, Germany independently attributed the phenomenon to a concentration of electrons on the semiconductor surface that set up an asymmetric barrier to current flow.

The discovery of the p-n junction is attributed to a "serendipitous discovery" rather than a methodical application of quantum theory. Your men Wigner and Sietz, while contributing to quantum theory, don't appear to have been pivotal in the development of semiconductors, though something called a "Wigner-Seitz cell" serves as a half-page introduction to something called Brillouin Zones in some semiconductor texts (usually no discussion of quantum effects there, but maybe it's implied).

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

 

[Cuddles]

I'm not very interested in unfalsifiable theories which make no testable predictions. Does theory that there's a universe in every black hole make any testable predictions?

I've already linked to some papers on the subject, and you can find even more here. Asking if torsion theories make testable predictions is like asking if string theory makes any predictions - yes, but you're going to have to be a hell of a lot more specific if you want any actual details. This isn't a single theory that some guy has just written an article on, it's an entire sub-field of physics with roots going back to Einstein and earlier. Some theories predict things that are obviously wrong and are only looked at for fun or because of where they might lead in the future, others predict almost exactly the same as general relativity and, as with string theory, are beyond our ability to distinguish with current technology.

Black holes are round (the non-spinning ones, at least), like basketballs. They have a center and an edge (the event horizon).

The universe, as far as we can tell, has no center and no edge. Every point is equivalent to every other point. On that basis alone, the universe is not a black hole, or inside a black hole.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get at the pdfs of his full talks, only the abstracts, but he seems to have addressed this. For example:

In this talk, I will argue that torsion’s repulsion not only prevents the formation of unphysical singularities in collapsing black holes, but also allows for a scenario in which every black hole produces a new universe inside. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in
another universe. This scenario could explain the origin of the Big Bang and the arrow of time. I will also demonstrate that this scenario explains why the Universe today appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic, without needing cosmic inflation. Moreover, if we were living in a rotating black hole then our Universe should have a “preferred direction” which could be related to the observed matter-antimatter imbalance and neutrino oscillations.

http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~elunghi/abstracts/poplawski.pdf

As for the fact that the universe has the right density to be a black hole the size of the cosmological horizon, that's not a coincidence - it's a consequence of Einstein's equations - but it's because both black holes and expanding universes are solutions to the same set of equations, not because they are the same solution (they're not).

The whole point of torsion is that it goes beyond general relativity*. The effects are only significant at extremely high densities, so they mostly agree but give different answers about what happens inside black holes and in the early universe. Merely repeating what general relativity says is pointless, since the whole point is that these theories will disagree with GR on certain points, just not the points that we've been able to test so far.

It's also worth noting that Poplawski does not actually claim that we must be living in a black hole, he simply says that appears to be one of the allowed solutions. There could be any number of reasons why it turns out to be wrong, even if this theory did eventually replace GR.

*OK, "goes beyond" sounds a bit wooish. What I mean is that torsion is an actual valid extension to GR. It's actually similar to the cosmological constant. They're both quantities that can form a valid part of the equations, but which standard GR assumes to be zero and ignores. We now think that a cosmological constant, or something like it, needs to be included, and it may also be the case that non-zero torsion can also solve some problems GR has at extreme scales.

 

[sol invictus]

Unfortunately I can't seem to get at the pdfs of his full talks, only the abstracts, but he seems to have addressed this. For example:

http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~elunghi/abstracts/poplawski.pdf

That abstract sets off all sorts of crank alarm bells. He's claiming including torsion magically solves at least five of the biggest problems in physics.

Note that this (torsion and related extensions of general relativity) is something that people have been studying for the last 100 years, without it ever catching on or getting much attention.

The whole point of torsion is that it goes beyond general relativity*. The effects are only significant at extremely high densities, so they mostly agree but give different answers about what happens inside black holes and in the early universe. Merely repeating what general relativity says is pointless, since the whole point is that these theories will disagree with GR on certain points, just not the points that we've been able to test so far.

If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small. See here for instance. What I said about black holes and the universe applies to the universe today, when the average energy density is low and the effects of torsion (given those constraints) are totally negligible.

 

[not_so_new]

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

I think you are probably taking this way too seriously. It's all good, welcome to the forum.

To be clear, you are dealing with a lot of highly educated and / or very bright folks on this site. There are a lot of crackpot types that come out of the woodwork around here making claims that can't be backed up (not saying you are one of these trolls at all).

Your fist post on this thread said "I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever."

Which to a lot of folks around here rings of troll'ish behavior. It's like saying "I don't know what this subject is about and frankly I don't want to learn, I just know that you are wrong."

That may not be your intent but that was how your post came across, to me anyway.

Reading your follow up replies (getting past the bickering) it sounds like you are interested in learning more about the subject. There are two ways to do this.

- Someone like Sol (others as well) could show you the actual math, that is the only real way to understand these discussions.

- If you don't have the mathematical background (which many of us don't) then you will have to take their word for it and stay at the 100,000 foot view of the subject. Words do a really bad job of explaining subjects like this, the language of the universe is math after all....



Unless you know the math at some point you are going to have to take someone's word on this unfortunately.

That said, it will always raise the ire of people around here if you say "on the surface this subject doesn't look to be true so, while I don't have the expertise to understand the subject at hand, I am going to still say it can't be true." Just warning you on the reactions you will get with that line of thought.

Again, it's all good, welcome to the forum.

 

[The Man]

If torsion is non-zero, experiment constrains it to be very small. See here for instance. What I said about black holes and the universe applies to the universe today, when the average energy density is low and the effects of torsion (given those constraints) are totally negligible.

A compelling counterargument, given the torsion as the dominate factor for the black hole universe. One would expect it to also be a dominant factor in that (this if we were in a black hole) universe ( if not locally then at least globally) and that doesn’t seem to be the case . I do notice in the paper you linked….

Moreover, since the number of indices on the irreducible torsion components is odd, all the terms in Eq. (2) violate effective CPT symmetry. Laboratory experiments can therefore in principle discern different torsion signals for particles and antiparticles.

So perhaps such torsion considerations may yet be helpful in addressing the matter antimatter imbalance stemming from an earlier time in the universe when it could play a more effective role?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Seems nonsensical on the face of it. The universe is incomprehensibly big, black holes are not. The universe is mostly empty space, black holes are not. I don't really care (& undoubtedly could not understand) what mathematics make this look plausible, as a physical proposition it makes no sense whatsoever.

But if your universe were a miniature universe compared to another universe, you would not know, and something very small in this big universe would be incomprehensibly big to you in the miniature universe.

I don't particularly see any reason to think any of this is true, but your objections seem a bit limited to me.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That's not what I did. I stated a couple of objections, and confessed that I wouldn't be able to understand a mathematical explanation of why my objections were misplaced. This was an implied suggestion to anyone who wanted to address my objections that I would prefer a non-mathematical explanation. If nothing but mathematics could explain it, too bad for me.


Surely your degree in physics gives you such knowledge.


He's stated a different physical-not-mathematical objection to the theory. I don't see a condescending follow-up from you to his post.


I've followed your suggestion, but I've been unable to confirm the claims which PBS is making there. In fact, at this site, and specifically at this link, it says:

The discovery of the p-n junction is attributed to a "serendipitous discovery" rather than a methodical application of quantum theory. Your men Wigner and Sietz, while contributing to quantum theory, don't appear to have been pivotal in the development of semiconductors, though something called a "Wigner-Seitz cell" serves as a half-page introduction to something called Brillouin Zones in some semiconductor texts (usually no discussion of quantum effects there, but maybe it's implied).

I apologize if I've taken this too personally, but I was annoyed by your "You're wrong; the proof is left as an exercise for you" response. If you don't have something educational to offer, is there really any need to get smug about the ignorance I've already admitted?

At no point was I trying to be nasty to you. I was not intending to be smug.

As the Red Queen said, "You may call it "nonsense" if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"

I'm sorry that you have taken things personally. I hesitate to say it but "It's only the Internet".

 

[zeggman]

At no point was I trying to be a troll, but apparently that's what I looked like to not_so_new. I'll try to be more careful. No hard feelings on my part; sorry about the bickering.

 

[not_so_new]

At no point was I trying to be a troll, but apparently that's what I looked like to not_so_new. I'll try to be more careful. No hard feelings on my part; sorry about the bickering.

It's all good Zeggman. As I said, your replies after the first post on this tread seem to point in a different direction.

We get lots and lots of crazies here based on the site so I think the regulars around here (myself included although I tend to lurk more than post) are quick to jump the gun when something looks a little out of left field. If you stick around for a while you will start to see a pattern to the crazy.



Again, welcome to the forum.