Universe emerged from a 4D black hole event horizon

The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?

"Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics and is it testable?

What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional "mirage" of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.

"Cosmology's greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself," write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.

Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity -- an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional "wrapping" around a four-dimensional black hole's event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.

In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons -- that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the "point of no return." In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.

In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the singularity. It originated as -- and remains -- just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.

The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound "absurd," is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they've used the tools of holography to "turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage." Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and -- crucially -- produce testable predictions.

Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.

But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.

They draw a parallel to Plato's allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.

"Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension," they write. "Plato's prisoners didn't understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don't understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers."----------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140807145618.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The idea of an ultra-supermassive star collapsing into a black hole and cracking it's way out of its universe and into another, spawning our universe...

Honestly... wouldn't bother me all that much. It makes more sense than the idea of EVERYTHING in the known universe being super-condensed down to an infinitely small point, then exploding from that point to fill the universe as we know it...

Since, you know... I'd have to ask why that small point didn't collapse into a black hole itself XD

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a good point. How COULDN'T the singularity before the Big Bang be a black hole? Another question: how did it explode with that infinite gravity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Black holes don't have infinite gravity. The gravity depends on the mass in the black hole, since the mass is not infinite neither is the gravity.

 

"At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them."---http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html

 

Read the theory of Eternal Inflation. It answers all your questions and the predictions for eternal inflation have been verified during the WMAP experiment. It's how our Universe came into being. Read all about the results of the 'great cosmological experiment' WMAP.

 

You'd think by now some of these folks would have learned something about modern cosmology. Considering this science has made huge strides forward over the last 30 years. Considering the cosmological experiments are so spectacular. It's like they were conducted in secrecy. Considering they are answering questions about the origin and evolution of this universe.

 

You are correct that if singularities exist; at the point of the singularity the gravity would be infinite. I was incorrect when I made the overly general statement about gravity and black holes.

 

That quote doesn't say much about the science. For sure we know gravity isn't infinite anywhere in the universe. The following is the way I look at it [good choice since I get to agree with Hawking and Penrose].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Classically this is the way to look at it

"For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner.[1] The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems."

This is key [strategy] to finding the quantum gravity description [r=0 is the domain of quantum gravity].

"According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang,[4] but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[5] Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating).[6] This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities."

In my estimation GR doesn't predict anything about r=0 other than all geodesics terminate there.

So we got some folks writing papers on quantum gravity that predict the black hole never forms because the negative energy at at r=0 somehow [I don't understand] results in a stable shell forming outside of r=2M or a stable shell at r=M depending on which paper you're reading. These papers predict singularities don't form during gravitational collapse. I think. LOL.

 

BH's are embedded in spacetime. The BB Singularity was spacetime.

 

I'm not sure you were wrong origin.
A BH singularity need not be infinite in any respect, although the possibility of it leading to infinite quantities is open.

 

That's a far better way to put what I just said brucep...nice.

 

Any theory which permits the existence of a singularity is suspect.

The view that there is a singularity at or near the center of a Black Hole implies that General Relativity needs some revison. Perhaps the inclusion of some aspects of Quantum Theory would help.

 

No, it means the theory has parameters outside of which it is not applicable.
A future validated QGT will not invalidate GR.

 

GR has a different domain of applicability. That's what paddoboy is telling you. Quantum theory of gravity recovers GR in it's classical domain of applicability which is the four dimensions of relativistic physics. GR isn't a quantum theory and doesn't make predictions about quantum natural phenomena. It's common for novice to think they have a common domain of applicability. Happens all the time.

 

PaddoBoy: From your Post #14

The above was in response to my Post #13

I did not mean to imply that GR was or would be invalidated, & do not think that advocating revision is a statement that a current theory is invalid.

Since circa the time of Newton (perhaps since Galileo), scientific knowledge seems some what analogous to successive approximations methods for solving equations which cannot be solved analytically. Each advance provides more knowledge and/or better methods/precision, but does not invalidate previous science.

Note that NASA still uses Newtonian equations for most of its projects.

BTW: An interesting use of General Relativity is the setting of clock frequencies used in satellites used for global positioning. The frequency of clocks in the satellites is different from the frequency of the clocks on Earth. Without the adjustment calculated positions would be off by circa 1-3 meters in 2-3 days & totally unusable in a week or two.

The above errors are SWAG’s by me.

A SWAG is a Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess, which is a bit better than a WAG.

This is the only NASA project which I know requires GR calculations/corrections.

BruceP:From your Post #15

Above in response to my Post #13

I am well aware that GR relates to the classical level of reality. Are you aware that there are folks with serious credentials who are attempting to develop some theory which incorporates Quantum features into a GR-like framework?

I think one such attempt is called some phrase like Quantum Gravity.

BTW: I do not understand why various experts expect a singularity at or near the center of a Black Hole. Such a notion requires that matter can be compressed into zero volume resulting in infinite density.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities after gravity has compressed some amount of matter to Neutron Star density.

There is a limiting density preventing further compression, resulting in a finite non-zero volume & a finite density.

Neutron Star matter can be compressed to zero volume resulting in infinite density.​

It surprises me that the GR experts have cogent reasons to preclude the first possibility & claim that the latter is correct. I would be interested in pertinent links or citations.

 

A Singularity in itself, is not Infinite in density, or spacetime curvature, although it may lead to such Infinite quantities.
It is simply the breakdown of GR at the quantum/Planck level...
I believe an observationaly verified QGT will reveal a surface of sorts below that level.

 

I am an egg.

I always thought a singularity was not a physical thing, but a breakdown in the math we use to describe conditions "there".

There's no reason this universe couldn't have begun as a pimple on a 4D BH if we can model it and accurately describe it. Whether that's the "end of all physics" will be determined by our children and theirs. If we can manage not to burn the house down...

 

Hooray for Lee Smolin and the Perimeter Institute!

Lee, by the way, was taught theoretical physics by the likes of Dewitt and Wheeler. I think I have read all of his books for the last two decades or so.

And just when I was about to give up on mathematicians having much imagination, too. Dreams of reality.

 

Far from being an egg Doc, I'm sure the term Singularity can be applied to both reality and mathematically.