That universe has experienced a heat death long ago. We are all there is.

...


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.

Perhaps. I like to think of it as "universes within universes", each forming their own "continuum". Heat death is another matter altogether, I think. Maybe it wouldn't be instantaneous but technically the "outer" universe would experience it much sooner than the black hole itself (owning to the extreme effects of time-dilation near the event horizon). Otherwise it is hard to say when heat death does actually occur, if at all.

 

Hard to say.

It's a simple matter of resolving all the infinities.

 

It's a simple matter of resolving all the infinities.

Or maybe just connecting dots? If this so-called "black hole universe" theory is indeed true, "heat death" will likely not be in our cards. Black holes do after all get hotter as they evaporate. As such we should expect to find a corresponding rise in temperature here within our local universe.

 

Wow! A paper featured in this month's American Journal of Physics seems to support my theory. The authors produced a graphic to illustrate their observations.

The article goes on to say:



So there you have it. We could very well be orbiting an uber-massive black hole right at this very moment!

According to my calculations it should be extremely cold, just a few degrees above absolute zero in fact. Also while all black holes do eventually evaporate via a process known as "Hawking radiation", growing ever hotter at an accelerated rate, ours is so large and cold that you could multiply the current "lifetime" of the universe times the number of microseconds since and ours would still not have evaporated completely by such time.

But really the beauty of the whole thing is that it actually vindicates Einstein. He may have been wrong about the cosmological constant but only because he could not have possibly foreseen that the expansion of space might be "fueled" by the effects of falling into something which his own theories predicted (ie. the black hole). But now it makes perfect sense. Space only appears to be expanding...everything within its event horizon is shrinking at an accelerated rate!

Hi,

So if we were orbiting a big black hole, how do you explain that the expansion of the universe is not unidirectional, wouldn't there be some unidirectional activity?

 

How BIG? Infinite. There is no end. Not in scale (in either direction).

 

How BIG? Infinite. There is no end. Not in scale (in either direction).

Hi,

From what I understand, there is still an ongoing debate whether the universe is finite, infinite, or just very, very large. There's no way to tell because of the way the expansion makes light travel look faster than our local maximum light speed. But even if there was no 'apparent' increase way out there, if it approached light speed we would still not be able to see/measure some things that were very far out there because the light would never get back to us to make any measurements.
There could be something we don't know yet that will change this view, but we don't have that knowledge yet as far as I know.

 

 

“Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375744216_Do_Black_Holes_have_Singularities

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/singularities-dont-exist-roy-kerr/

 

 

I can't remember which is the right thread for stuff like this:

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-method-straighten-space.html

I like the approach. It reminds me of how we engineers use transforms to visualize and process the same data in different domains.

 

 

Wow ... that was impressive. Thanks for posting.

 

Hi,

From what I understand, there is still an ongoing debate whether the universe is finite, infinite, or just very, very large. There's no way to tell because of the way the expansion makes light travel look faster than our local maximum light speed. But even if there was no 'apparent' increase way out there, if it approached light speed we would still not be able to see/measure some things that were very far out there because the light would never get back to us to make any measurements.
There could be something we don't know yet that will change this view, but we don't have that knowledge yet as far as I know.

Claims of physical infinities are not scientific claims. I don't know of a test for infinity, it is speculation, not science. Infinity is an abstract concept, from mathematics not material reality. Singularities are generally understood as an error of reasoning, an incorrect conclusion stemming from incorrect premises.

Imagine a scientific experiment showing that X was infinite, how would that look? The universe, its laws, cannot be explained scientifically, laws describe how the state of a system changes as time elapses, they cannot explain why those laws exist.

 

Singularities are generally understood as an error of reasoning, an incorrect conclusion stemming from incorrect premises.

I agree ... and I'd say "Bingo!" ... but the truth is that I've never seen, touched or tasted a singularity ... they might just be abstract concepts derived from incomplete mathematical models created by the human mind. And maybe they contain no infinite anything at all. But so far they're the inevitable conclusion of the best models or reality that we've been able to come up with ... and just because said conclusion is not compatible with our human experience does not necessarily make it an impossible outcome.

 

I agree ... and I'd say "Bingo!" ... but the truth is that I've never seen, touched or tasted a singularity ... they might just be abstract concepts derived from incomplete mathematical models created by the human mind. And maybe they contain no infinite anything at all. But so far they're the inevitable conclusion of the best models or reality that we've been able to come up with ... and just because said conclusion is not compatible with our human experience does not necessarily make it an impossible outcome.

As Kerr would say (no Singularities), there is nothing in the middle but a rock for what's left of new matter falling in, to make a splat on when it hits that rock.

 

Well s

I agree ... and I'd say "Bingo!" ... but the truth is that I've never seen, touched or tasted a singularity ... they might just be abstract concepts derived from incomplete mathematical models created by the human mind. And maybe they contain no infinite anything at all. But so far they're the inevitable conclusion of the best models or reality that we've been able to come up with ... and just because said conclusion is not compatible with our human experience does not necessarily make it an impossible outcome.

Singularities are, in effect, contradictions and contradictions are either incorrect reasoning or incorrect premises or both! Scientific Inquiry has limited applicability, it can only ever "explain" how a system's state changes, it enables us to predict future state but sheds little light on how/why the laws themselves came to be. Science does not attempt to explain how a rationally intelligible universe came to exist, causality and determinism cannot explain the presence of causality and determinism.

 

 

I don't want to make this a religious discussion. I've only seen people get serious (I don't mean swearing) about 'God' when their lives or the ones they love lives were on the line, not when they could or couldn't solve a scientific problem or equation.

 

Claims of physical infinities are not scientific claims. I don't know of a test for infinity, it is speculation, not science. Infinity is an abstract concept, from mathematics not material reality. Singularities are generally understood as an error of reasoning, an incorrect conclusion stemming from incorrect premises.

Imagine a scientific experiment showing that X was infinite, how would that look? The universe, its laws, cannot be explained scientifically, laws describe how the state of a system changes as time elapses, they cannot explain why those laws exist.

Hi there,

Thanks for the idea about that, and you've also made this more interesting.

I can agree to a certain point, but in order to agree fully I'd have to know virtually everything about the universe, but I do not, and nobody does. That means it would be hard for me to make any final claim about anything.
You are saying that a physical infinity is just a mathematical construct, but the only thing you have to compare to a physical infinity is a mathematical construct. There is no one on earth right now that can say with absolute certainty that the universe is not infinite and have proof to back it up. That does not mean that we have to believe that it is infinite, and it seems more convenient to not believe that.

We can say that math is imperfect because it gives rise to infinities, but I do not think it is right to use math to say that there can be no infinities. I say this because we are using math to claim there are mathematical infinities and possible physical infinities, when we have nothing else to back that up. Thus, we still have to rely on math to state that the universe lacks some quality of math. Who made math king, or the ultimate rule on which all things should be determined. We use math for convenience. The universe is what it is, not necessarily what we say about it with math, and so also not what we say it cannot be with math.

Using some infinities in math results in a very perfect result in theory, but it is also interesting that those results can be approximated by using a very large number instead of a theoretical infinity. That gives rise to the thought that the universe does not have to be infinite in order to act like it is.
We end up, yet again, on the very edge of reality and into the realm of what we usually consider pure philosophy where there is often a varied opinion on what is real and what is not real. We have to accept that we may never know everything for sure.

"We float on a sea of premises that can change at any time and sink the boat."

 

I don't want to make this a religious discussion. I've only seen people get serious (I don't mean swearing) about 'God' when their lives or the ones they love lives were on the line, not when they could or couldn't solve a scientific problem or equation.

God and religion are very different subjects. If origins cannot be accounted for scientifically one has to face the implications of that, nothing whatsoever to do with "religion".