Tags
Albert Einstein, Black hole, Einstein, General relativity, New Scientist, Nikodem Popławski, Physics, Planck time, Relativity, Spin (physics)
.
.
What started the big bang? What caused expansion to accelerate? What is the source of the mysterious dark energy that is apparently causing the universe to speed up its expansion? Maybe we are living inside a black hole…
By Rebecca Boyle
Posted 07.23.2010 at 11:53 am
Popular Science
Scientists trying to explain the universe’s accelerating expansion usually point to dark energy, which seems to be pushing everything apart. 
But an Indiana University professor has a new theory, reports New Scientist: We’re inside a black hole that exists in another universe.
Specifically, a black hole that rebounded, somewhat like a spring.
Some fairly mind-blowing physics is involved here, but the gist is that Nikodem Poplawski of IU-Bloomington used a modified version of Einstein’s general relativity equation set that takes particle spin into account. Including this variable makes it possible to calculate torsion, part of the geometry of space-time. It also gets rid of the black hole singularity, a phenomenon that general relativity cannot explain.
In a study published earlier this year, Poplawski said “When the density of matter reaches epic proportions, torsion counters gravity. This prevents matter from compressing indefinitely to a singularity of infinite density. Instead, matter rebounds like a spring, and starts expanding again.”
In Poplawski’s latest study, his calculations show that space-time inside the black hole expands to about 1.4 times its smallest size in as little as 10-46 seconds — two orders of magnitude faster, for lack of a better word, than the Planck time. This brisk bounce-back could have been what led to the expanding universe that we see today.
But here’s the real kicker: as Poplawski says, “We may not be living in our universe at all; we might be living inside a rebounded black hole that exists in a different universe. We could tell by measuring the preferred direction of our universe. A spinning black hole would have imparted some spin to the space-time inside it, which would violate a law of symmetry that links space and time. This might explain why neutrinos oscillate between their antimatter and regular-matter states.”
Thanks for visiting,
Eric
Related articles
- Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries (phys.org)
- Our Universe Might Just Be Fourth-Dimensional Black Hole Vomit (gizmodo.com.au)
- Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? (richarddawkins.net)
- Journey to a Black Hole (interactive) (hubblesite.org)
- Scientists discover ‘black holes’ in Earth’s oceans (mnn.com)
- Light-bending black hole mimic is first you can watch (newscientist.com)
- Do black holes have hair? (spacedaily.com)
- Hairy black holes (nebula696.wordpress.com)
- Hairy black hole could show gaps in Einstein’s theory (newscientist.com)
.
.
the Hunt for Truth 
Pingback: Einstein’s nightmares… part one | Hunt FOR Truth on wordpress
Eric, this is interesting to say the least–though I don’t really understand all the math and science behind it. I don’t really know how Abba designed our universe but I know He is so creative this theory could be true.;-)
its another in a long line of theories — Einstein got baffled by criticisms in the end when he began working to include particles — he ought to have kept at what he was up to, I think. Still, as you and I know — it makes no real difference — its just interesting
Sounds interesting, but I don’t know enough about mathematics and the underlying science to know whether this is realistic or a bit of doctor who-esque poetry.
I feel that.
This whole ‘how did the universe begin’ is becoming a meal ticket from hundreds and maybe to become thousands of theories — it is interesting — they have that
Thanks for looking in.
~ Eric
I don’t know if this hair-brained idea has quite achieved “theory” status yet, but hey, black holes were hypothetical for like 250 years before they were proven to exist.
they seemed not to fascinate Einstein — even though it was his work that really brought the concept into the forefront. he didn’t care much about superposition particles either
I would think black holes would not be understandable before quantum mechanics because they are simply so inaccessible. It’s not like you can poke your head in and look inside of one.
the mass of them fit them into relativity- gravity space-time math — it was the math of the singularity of their core that put Einstein off — he apparently didn’t believe in singularities… he didn’t like the big bang too much really either.
He wasn’t fond of a steady-state universe either, lol, he said that fudging the numbers to make the universe steady-state was his biggest blunder – now it turns out it’s not steady-state and he was right. And yeah, the whole “infinite density” thing always sounded like BS to me.
still there is/was a problem — what is causing accelerating expansion? Since this wasn’t pronounced until recently, Einstein hadn’t a chance to explain this. He’d perhaps have discovered loop gravity — not dark matter. Loop gravity allows for the apparent actual fact that space-time is grainy. Dark matter is an idea that is just a fudged “fix” for the gravity problem of that galaxies should “fly” apart. I’m not sure really though if the loop gravity problem solves really the whole problem either — it seems that it may explain what has been thought to be undetectable mass (dark matter) — or maybe the string guys are right and there are dimensions that can’t be detected (yet) — many more of them (strange at least). Maybe these new black hole theories may turn out to explain reality — somewhat strange — but I like it better than the strings.
see: http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/quantum/loops
There comes a point where I, not being a mathematician or a physicist, have to just say “beats the hell outta me”.
I say just about that exact same thing — and I didn’t even yet mention the holographic and computer generated reality theories
Not sure I’d call them “theories” just yet.
good point
Gives me more to ponder…thanks.
ah – yes — this may be a creative challenge
Have Fun!
~ Eric