Our Universe in a Black Hole, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy: A Beginner's Hypothesis

2621 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2013
Our Universe in a Black Hole, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy: A Beginner's Hypothesis
Posted by jacobarmstrong on Monday, May 20, 2013 3:38 AM

I'm not an astronomer, just an endlessly curious fan. Some (or many) of my ideas may be incorrect. If so, don't hesitate to point out any misconceptions I have. It's much appreciated  .

Here goes,

There is a notion that our universe could be inside a black hole, which got me thinking...

Prior to the Big Bang, there was the initial singularity, a gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang.

This initial singularity is quite similar (the exact same, for all I know) to what we would find at the center of a black hole, where general relativity describes a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Or in other words, a gravitational singularity.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.

Given these facts, could it be that the singularity that was our Universe was once the singularity in a black hole? Could some specific occurence in a Universe (a gamma ray burst, maybe?) cause the singularity in a black hole to undergo it's own "big bang"?

When a black hole "swallows" an object, that object is put into the gravitational singularity at the black hole's center. But if the vast majority of mass in our universe is mostly empty space, then where does the space go when the object joins the singularity...?

Is it possible that after the Big Bang occured, any matter that our "mother black hole" swallows is put into our universe as dark matter, while the space that our mother swallows is thrown in as dark energy?

And wouldn't it make sense that the expanding nature of our Universe is due to swallowed space constantly being thrown in by whatever black hole is eating it? After all, if space is endlessly put into an area that contains masses then those masses must be pushed apart, creating an effect identical to how our universe expands.

Lastly, my ideas in short:

Gamma ray burst (or another occurence in the Universe) causes the singularity in a black hole to experience a "big bang", starting the beginning of a new Universe inside that black hole. We'll call it Universe2.

Any subsequent matter swallowed by the black hole is put into Universe2 as dark matter, causing the inconsistencies in the Universe that we attribute to dark matter (stars and galaxies moving faster than expected, etc.).

Any subsequent space swallowed by the black hole is put into Universe2 as dark energy, causing the ever-so-puzzling expansion of the Universe.

Thank you all! There's quite a bit more, but I'll stop there. Any input is highly encouraged, I'm quite fascinated by this stuff!   

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Monday, May 20, 2013 6:59 AM

jacobarmstrong : Sounds good to me. Most people like to think of a black hole that produces a universe as a " white hole " the object within which the black hole out pours itself. However, your idea appears to resemble the idea of an oscillating universe which is a self contained rebounding black hole which simple collapses into a singularity , which ultimately is repetitious, which in this case; ultimately, would be of eternal origin. Just think about it.

consider this, can you visualize something just appearing, if so where is this place it's going to appear in. Is it not more reasonable to think of the place where all this is to appear as having always been there, if so why not always have, all that is, having, always existed (eternal ). You do exist , do you not (?). Just think about it.

  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: 59d24.3'N17d49.1'E
Posted by boberglund on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:43 AM

Read Edward M. Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing" and you will realize that our universe contains a sum total of zero net energy and mass!

No need to explain where the energy came from because there is just a mix of positive and negative energy summing out to zero.

Also realize that "nothing" is really a can full of worms that needs some thinking, even empty space is something and was also created at the start of everything so there was nothing to stage the big bang inside previous to the big bang....

Very intersting reading and it does not take a lot of math either to get the gist of it!

Bo B
Sweden
(N59d24.27' E17d49.12')

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:31 PM

boberglund : This idea which you present is a great idea if you have an intrinsic value from which this event may occur. I would like very much to present we have; because of reality, this intrinsic value from which all reality has substance. This would indicate to me, the idea of nothing retaining intrinsic value is an oxymoron, if applied as a source of reality. Non existence falls in the same concept.

M44
  • Member since
    January, 2010
Posted by M44 on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:05 AM

I don't believe there was a singularity in the early universe and black holes are not singularities. They are just VERY VERY small, VERY VERY dense and VERY VERY hot.

How can I be at one with the universe when we don't know what 96% of it actually is?

http://philippugh.comlu.com/index.html

 

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:23 PM

M44 : Good point, I, at one time gave some thought to this idea, and I can't completely dismiss the two of these ideas. It appears to me the formation of a singularity requires interaction from a source other than an internal interaction, sort of like an interaction which would allow mass to reach or exceed C within our universe. If we chose to use equations to look at this we might choose the concept of uncertainty and the concept of virtual pair. This would allow sufficient mass-energy to be present at some specific position in space-time as time approaches zero, to produce a singularity, which should occur in great numbers, if matter trumps anti-matter, unless this occurs within the first period, within less than the Planch Epoch. Thank you. Just my opinion.

  • Member since
    June, 2013
Posted by Vickster339 on Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:27 AM

It has all changed... nobody knows it yet.. it is all here...

Dark Energy is no more real than Ether.... Dark matter are likely singularities in the Halo of galaxies.

Here you will find the path to understanding the Rational Universe:

www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1

I welcome criticism or ideas!

Jimmy Vick

https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1

  • Member since
    July, 2011
Posted by sceptic on Friday, June 21, 2013 3:04 PM

I do not think that dark matter is a singularity in the halo of galaxies. Supposing that , in a first approximation, the stars have a circular orbit around the center of gravity of the galaxy, the inertial acceleration v*v/r is equal to the gravitational acceleration µM/'r*r), where r is the distance to the gravity center of the galaxy, µ the gravitation constant and M the mass of the galaxy. Thus r*v*v/(µM) must be equal to 1, but it is much larger. v is measured by Doppler effect, µ is well known, thus r/M is wrong. It is generally assumed that M is wrong, but I think that r is wrong because, for me, Hubble's law does measure a distance, but the column density of atomic hydrogen in its first excited state, (or sometimes only in 2P state).

There are several proofs that the usual interpretation of Hubble's law is wrong:

1- For Halton Arp (and others), the Hubble's distance is increased by the presence of hot hydrogen.

2- Burbidge, Karlsson and others found that if a large number of redshifts of galaxies (or quasars) are represented by points on an axis of redshifts, it appears accumulations of points with a periodicity by  Karlsson's constant .061 (for the redshifts of galaxies, 0.061 is multiplied  integers (3,4,6,7,8,10,...).

3- The theory of Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering (ISRS) applies to excited hydrogen and ordinary incoherent light which is very weakly redshifted (the computation shows that the path needed for the observation of ISRS with incoherent light is astronomical while, using femtosecond light pulses, ISRS is observed in labs.

I am unable to find anything on facebook.

Best regards

jmo

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:00 AM

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

  • Member since
    July, 2011
Posted by sceptic on Friday, January 31, 2014 2:28 AM

G

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

Primordial

jmo : I have one question, you use "mu" to represent the gravitational constant, , right (?), Is the purpose to indicate a variation in the standard " G " gravitational constant, within the system at that space-time position,  if so, what value do you use as "mu" (?).  

Sceptic : Could I interest you in the possible existence of singularities left over from symmetry breaking during the Planck Epoch(?).

I'll be back after my scheduled (12- 7PM  ) absence today.

 

  • Member since
    July, 2011
Posted by sceptic on Friday, January 31, 2014 2:30 AM
Excuse me, I had not seen the question G or µ is not important (µ is an old notation)

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

ADVERTISEMENT

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Receive news, sky-event information, observing tips, and more from Astronomy's weekly email newsletter.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...