Can black holes create a universe

if so

are all the new galaxies and stars much smaller?

contained in the black hole?

we don’t know but probably no.

Though Lee Smolin thinks so

Smolin interview (bear in mind this is very speculative stuff not accepted by most physicists):

The universe may have been borne inside a black hole, and the black holes in our own cosmos might be birthing new universes of their own, if one physicist’s controversial idea about time is true.

Going against the standard view of most scientists, theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has suggested that time is real, rather than the illusion that Einstein’s theory of relativity makes it out to be. Smolin, who’s based at Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, outlines the idea in his new book “Time Reborn” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, April 2013).

SPACE.com caught up with Smolin recently to learn more about this theory, and the real nature of time.

Interview at link:

http://www.space.com/21335-black-holes-time-universe-creation.html

Very interesting, the explanation of the universe is becoming more logical all the time.

PermeateFree said:

Very interesting, the explanation of the universe is becoming more logical all the time.

Gives a new slant to multi-universes

each one is in a black hole

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Very interesting, the explanation of the universe is becoming more logical all the time.

Gives a new slant to multi-universes

each one is in a black hole

Or pushed out the other side with a big bang.

i don’t think blackholes in this universe spawn other universes mainly because we know the mass of our BH and it isn’t a universe amount.

This explains the theory about this universe being “inside” a BH

ChrispenEvan said:

i don’t think blackholes in this universe spawn other universes mainly because we know the mass of our BH and it isn’t a universe amount.

This explains the theory about this universe being “inside” a BH

But our universe is still comparatively young, although if a single black hole can produce a universe when aged sufficiently, then that new universe will be billions of times smaller than our one. However, when you try to imagine the size of ours, a universe the size of our own galaxy is plenty large enough.

our universe was created with all the mass and energy it has now. it hasn’t grown in these quantities so you would need a blackhole with those quantities. and if our universe is infinite then that would compound the problem.

ChrispenEvan said:

our universe was created with all the mass and energy it has now. it hasn’t grown in these quantities so you would need a blackhole with those quantities. and if our universe is infinite then that would compound the problem.

What if black holes crushed atomic particles and all the other sub-atomic particles to be even smaller than the higgs, to such a scale that allowed a universe to exist within a black hole

how much smaller would those particles be?

What if black holes crushed atomic particles and all the other sub-atomic particles to be even smaller than the higgs, to such a scale that allowed a universe to exist within a black hole

why smaller than the higgs? what difference would that make? also fundamental particles have certain masses, energy, so you can’t really change them and them still be the same particle, bit like asking why we can’t make an electron neutral. also we are pretty sure this isn’t how BH work.

ChrispenEvan said:

our universe was created with all the mass and energy it has now. it hasn’t grown in these quantities so you would need a blackhole with those quantities. and if our universe is infinite then that would compound the problem.

Well the universe according to the theory in not infinite.

what theory is that?

according to WMAP results the universe is flat and infinite. of course this may not be the be all and end all to it but it is the best we have at this current time.

ChrispenEvan said:

What if black holes crushed atomic particles and all the other sub-atomic particles to be even smaller than the higgs, to such a scale that allowed a universe to exist within a black hole

why smaller than the higgs? what difference would that make? also fundamental particles have certain masses, energy, so you can’t really change them and them still be the same particle, bit like asking why we can’t make an electron neutral. also we are pretty sure this isn’t how BH work.

Perhaps if you read the article and watched the video it might become clearer to you.

smolin’s views are not mainstream and not backed by the data from wmap. i have read the article.

ChrispenEvan said:

smolin’s views are not mainstream and not backed by the data from wmap. i have read the article.

Well I was referring to the Smolin theory and the thread is about the Smolin theory, so it sounds like you are barking up the wrong tree.

i was pointing out the problems with what CN proposed. and anyway is this going to be another PF is right and everyone else is wrong thread? cos if it is then you can get on with it.

ChrispenEvan said:

i was pointing out the problems with what CN proposed. and anyway is this going to be another PF is right and everyone else is wrong thread? cos if it is then you can get on with it.

No you criticised what I had said also, and it is you who are proclaiming it wrong. All I was doing was commenting on the theory without taking any side. I think as usual Boris you are talking through you hat.

and another thread dies of shame.

ChrispenEvan said:

and another thread dies of shame.

If it does, then it is due entirely to your befuddled and arrogant approach.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can black holes create a universe

if so

are all the new galaxies and stars much smaller?

contained in the black hole?

My understanding is that dark energy makes the universes expansion rate accelerate, which makes the idea that the universe is contained within a black hole very unlikely. Ditto because the 4-space curvature of the universe is very close to zero.

I’m certainly no expert, but Smolin’s idea seems largely “decorative” to me. It doesn’t seem to introduce anything that’s actually needed in order to arrive at an explicable physics, although he seems convinced that it does. But it does introduce a lot of speculation that can’t yet be tested.

and hence my “what theory is that”.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can black holes create a universe

Maybe.

CrazyNeutrino said:

if so

are all the new galaxies and stars much smaller?

contained in the black hole?

No. In theories that have black holes creating universes its best not to think of the “new” universe being inside the black hole; rather, think of the black hole as an Einstein-Rosen bridge, aka a wormhole . So the universe on the “other side” of the black hole can be any size. Typically, (in such theories) the “new” universe starts out with very high density, but expansion soon causes the density to drop.

…

I mentioned Lee Smolin’s Fecund Universes theory, aka Cosmological Natural Selection, in the Noether’s Theorem thread the other day. These ideas aren’t new, and Smolin happily admits that his ideas are an extension to ideas originally proposed by Wheeler, one of the big names in gravity theory (and Feynman’s PhD advisor) although I guess that Smolin has been tinkering with the details of how time works in this scenario.

A major impetus behind the original proposal of the Fecund Universes theory is that it provides a possible resolution to the black hole information paradox . The fact that it could also explain why various parameters of our universe seemed so well-tuned for production of galaxies, stars, planets and life is a pleasant side-effect.

It’s generally difficult to test cosmological theories: you can’t just go into the lab and start creating new universes. :) But it may eventually be possible to do some form of indirect testing on Fecund Universes using extremely powerful computers to run simulations of universe production by black holes and see what sort of universes eventually dominate the “population” of the total system.

If Cosmological Natural Selection is true then we’d expect to see a preponderance of universes that are good at reproducing, i.e. making more black holes that give birth to universes similar to their parent universe. Of course, it’s possible that lots of the baby universes in the total system are duds that can’t even form atoms, dying almost as soon as they’re born, but Smolin argues that we should ignore the duds and concentrate on the universes that manage to make it to adulthood. According to Smolin in The Life of the Cosmos, crude simulations carried out at the time indicated that universes that make lots of black holes do come to dominate, but I don’t know about recent developments in this field.

Since Fecund Universes was first proposed, various other ways to resolve the black hole information paradox have been put forth, but it’s still an open topic. Also, (IIRC) Fecund Universes pre-dates the discovery that the expansion of our universe is accelerating and hence dark energy theory. So given these and other developments in cosmology over the last couple of decades it’s interesting (IMHO) that Smolin still considers Fecund Universes to be worth working on. Or maybe he’s just stuck on his favourite hobby-horse. :)

OTOH, he hasn’t just been focusing on Fecund Universes for the last couple of decades: he’s also been working on the approach to unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity known as loop quantum gravity .

>you can’t just go into the lab and start creating new universes. :)<

:)

ChrispenEvan said:

What if black holes crushed atomic particles and all the other sub-atomic particles to be even smaller than the higgs, to such a scale that allowed a universe to exist within a black hole

why smaller than the higgs? what difference would that make? also fundamental particles have certain masses, energy, so you can’t really change them and them still be the same particle, bit like asking why we can’t make an electron neutral. also we are pretty sure this isn’t how BH work.

What Boris said.

But FWIW, you can sort-of make an a electron neutral by converting it into a neutrino, using a weak-force interaction. Of course, you also lose a lot of mass-energy, since there’s a fair bit of energy tied up in an electron’s electrical field.