There is no singularity. Just a 2D event horizon upon which the entire history of the black hole is irretrievably imprinted.

My theory: the 2D surface inflates into 3D as an object crosses (actually, enters into, it).

Ah, the holographic principle. Not sure I buy it for black holes; I'll stick with GR until we know more.

 

Ah, the holographic principle. Not sure I buy it for black holes; I'll stick with GR until we know more.

Wow! Thanks for putting a name on it.

All my reasoning is based on GR, not string theory (I don't know string theory -- it always seemed too esoteric to interest me). Until you mentioned it, I've never heard of the holographic principle.

I guess I gotta go learn what strings are all about now.

 

Wow! Thanks for putting a name on it.

All my reasoning is based on GR, not string theory (I don't know string theory -- it always seemed too esoteric to interest me). Until you mentioned it, I've never heard of the holographic principle.

I guess I gotta go learn what strings are all about now.

I'm impressed you reasoned your way to the holographic principle without knowing about it! Youtube has some accessible videos of the great Lenny Susskind:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=susskind+holographic+principle

 

I'm impressed you reasoned your way to the holographic principle without knowing about it!

I've been dabbling in GR as it relates to life, the universe, and everything for the past 30 years or so, trying to develop my own understanding of the universe (for right or wrong -- it doesn't really matter!).

Until about a month ago, I assumed that it was the one-dimensional singularity than inflated into 3 dimensions. But this kept leading me into various and incorrigible contradictions.

Then it popped into my head that a far simpler explanation (and without any contradictions!) was that the 2D sheet of the EH was inflating into 3D space (for an observer falling in). This was a eureka moment for me.

I can now, based upon this new understanding, answer the original question "Are we just living in a black hole?":

1) No. We are living in the one and only Universe.
2) All black holes are proto-universes -- with the possibility of replacing the "current" Universe with themselves as the new Universe.
3) Which one becomes the new Universe is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the frame-of-reference of infalling matter/energy into that black hole.
4) At the moment of creation of a new Universe, the old Universe -- and all other proto-universes -- die an instant heat death and cease to exist.

How's that for fun????

Edit:

5) This never happens for matter/energy/a consciousness that does not fall into a black hole. The existing singular Universe carries on its merry way.

 

I assumed that it was the one-dimensional singularity than inflated into 3 dimensions.

I would've thought that singularities have zero dimensions

 

I would've thought that singularities have zero dimensions

Why?

 

Why?

Because I visualize them as point-like entities

 

I would've thought that singularities have zero dimensions

In terms of 4D spacetime, the singularity at the center of a black hole has one dimension (the other three are identically zero). Which dimension remains depends on the metric, but it's always regarded as timelike.

 

Because I visualize them as point-like entities

I've always assumed that a singularity would require a size on the order of a Plank length (with regard to a distant observer). Therefore, zero dimensions is impossible.

On the other hand, it didn't feel correct to apply any more than one dimension. Imagine the singularity being a very small "point" of elastic material that vibrates (elongates) small amounts in arbitrary directions -- the material, of course, having infinite mass density.

This was always an uncomfortable visual for me. Too many contradictions. I now realize that the singularity does not -- and cannot -- exist. Therefore, I am no longer concerned with how many dimensions such a singularity might have.

 

Additionally, @cmartinez, please tell me what it means for a zero dimensional object to "rotate".

 

the material, of course, having infinity mass density.

And that's another thing, how can its density be infinite when its size is a plank length unit? ... I bet it's enormous, but not infinite. Just like our own universe.

 

Additionally, @cmartinez, please tell me what it means for a zero dimensional object to "rotate".

sure I will ... after you tell me what the perimeter of a sphere with a diameter of a Plank unit is ...

 

And that's another thing, how can its density be infinite when its size is a plank length unit?

The density of a one or two dimensional object can be infinite because it has no cross-sectional bulk (i.e zero volume).

 

The density of a one or two dimensional object can be infinite because it has not cross-sectional bulk (i.e zero volume).

Be patient with me, Joey. You're light years ahead of me on this subject, but I find it fascinating, so please interpret what may sound as objections rather as questions ... the thing that I can't get out of my head is the Plank length itself ... that's why I find most of this stuff hard to understand.

 

And btw, have you ever taken a look at this link? Maybe a little infantile for most of us, but it's fascinating stuff for youngsters to look at.

 

I'm impressed you reasoned your way to the holographic principle without knowing about it! Youtube has some accessible videos of the great Lenny Susskind:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=susskind+holographic+principle

Excellent! I watched this one:

It is the "contradictions" expressed (and resolved as "consistent and complementary") beginning at about 50:00 that led me to recognize the necessity of inflating the EH for an infalling observer. Unfortunately, this inflation can only be inferred -- it cannot be measured.

But I believe it explains the theorized cosmic inflation of our early Universe and the smoothness of it that we experience.

 

have you ever taken a look at this link?

Neat!

 

The relativity difference in measurements......is not because of velocity. Relativity can be demonstrated with very low velocity and even between stationary objects.

Relativity is caused by measurement/observation distance and ANGLE.

And it will fool the most meticulous measurement. Without the proper angle....it's very easy to mis-judge movement and structure. And of course the math will prove what you see.

The classic example for a stationary object is a helix...or coil of wire. Just changing the viewing angle can make this object a real puzzle. It appears to have two rotations....depending which end you view. One side doesn't occupy the same area or space as the other side. What the hell is this thing? But with the right viewing angle it becomes very clear.

And of course for a low velocity example we have planetary orbits. How often have they been measured? If one takes a decade off work......and trails behind a planet.......you will see that the orbit is not elliptical........it's helical....a one turn torus.

The resonance of gravity results in a perpendicular rotation. This is what conserves momentum. Not a math equation.

So....some one has some math to do.

 

The relativity difference in measurements......is not because of velocity. Relativity can be demonstrated with very low velocity and even between stationary objects.

Relativity is caused by measurement/observation distance and ANGLE.

And it will fool the most meticulous measurement. Without the proper angle....it's very easy to mis-judge movement and structure. And of course the math will prove what you see.

The classic example for a stationary object is a helix...or coil of wire. Just changing the viewing angle can make this object a real puzzle. It appears to have two rotations....depending which end you view. One side doesn't occupy the same area or space as the other side. What the hell is this thing? But with the right viewing angle it becomes very clear.

And of course for a low velocity example we have planetary orbits. How often have they been measured? If one takes a decade off work......and trails behind a planet.......you will see that the orbit is not elliptical........it's helical....a one turn torus.

The resonance of gravity results in a perpendicular rotation. This is what conserves momentum. Not a math equation.

So....some one has some math to do.

I suppose that, for those who don't reside in our respective heads, I make just as much sense as you do.

 

I don't believe you can get gravity dense enough to sheer particles. Gravity allows a plasma environment......but all the accelerations are electrical.....just like cern.

I don't think gravity converges to a point. I think the gravity gradient changes at the surface of the mass object. I think there is a perpendicular gravity component within the object. There might even be a light area or a null area at center. I also think it moves thru perpendiculars and spin, just like charge. Acceleration/momentum is exchanged/transferred thru right angle spin.

Gravity remains just as mystifying as it's ever been.

Wait a minute...it just struck me. What if the surface interface of the gravitational object is in realty an "event horizon". And since we all live within it......the theoretical argument is over.

Not very exciting is it. Gravity is just a pot to boil dipoles into atoms. With a high mass evaporation rate.