News2 mins ago
Black Hole Universe Cosmology
26 Answers
I'm initiating this thread for any who might share my interest in and/or care to discuss 'black hole universe cosmology'.
For some background on this theory here's a link to a relevant paper I've found that proposes this idea - http://
I'd like to stress that this thread is open to any and all for discussion of this or any related topics.
For some background on this theory here's a link to a relevant paper I've found that proposes this idea - http://
I'd like to stress that this thread is open to any and all for discussion of this or any related topics.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mibn2cweus. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Apologies for the corrupted link. Here's another attempt -
http://
http://
Initial thoughts -- somewhat sceptical. Perhaps I'm biased by the presentation, which is not exactly brilliant, and also the journal it's published in has a bit of a reputation for being, shall we say, not exactly mainstream. But never mind.
The idea doesn't look totally wacky although I'd like to see it taken rather a lot further. In particular I'm slightly intrigued by what problems it solves -- since, notably, it implies the existence of what is effectively a meta-Universe and it's clear that the author is happy for that to extend infinitely far back. Solving the problem of the beginning of the Universe by requiring an even more complex one to have presumably started or always existed seems like an un-necessary level of abstraction.
The idea doesn't look totally wacky although I'd like to see it taken rather a lot further. In particular I'm slightly intrigued by what problems it solves -- since, notably, it implies the existence of what is effectively a meta-Universe and it's clear that the author is happy for that to extend infinitely far back. Solving the problem of the beginning of the Universe by requiring an even more complex one to have presumably started or always existed seems like an un-necessary level of abstraction.
What perplexes me is what happens with the inevitable family reunion. I don't see how any of the relatives are equipped to bring along a picnic basket so some form of mutual cannibalism must be in the offing to reverse the regression into ever smaller and smaller universes.
Perhaps I need to read on . . .
Perhaps I need to read on . . .
I'd quite like to know what he means by "private communication with Martin Rees". I can't help but feel he means that he wrote an "OMG read this thing that disproves Einstein", or words to that effect -- and sent it to Martin Rees along with at least half of the academic world.
Again, perhaps I'm being unfair, but the presentation is similar to one I've seen before that shows up in my inbox periodically...
Again, perhaps I'm being unfair, but the presentation is similar to one I've seen before that shows up in my inbox periodically...
Yes in this paper that's a bit unfair perhaps but it just has that sort of feel to it. This private communication with Martin Rees just smacks of that; I don't know why, maybe it's nothing. But someone who is almost by definition outside the mainstream of science (because of his choice of journal; because I can't find many other scholarly works of his in more established journals) is unlikely to be a close colleague of Martin Rees's.
Also I just read another couple of his papers that are in topics that are my specialism and they are utter and unmitigated drivel. While the idea of a black-hole universe might have some merit, I wouldn't touch this guy's interpretation of it for another second.
Also I just read another couple of his papers that are in topics that are my specialism and they are utter and unmitigated drivel. While the idea of a black-hole universe might have some merit, I wouldn't touch this guy's interpretation of it for another second.
Jim, you do seem to have a penchant for reading what isn’t there. Like Mibs, I can’t see where this paper attempts to refute Einstein and I can’t see where Dr. Zhang claims to be a ‘close colleague’ of Martin Rees either. As for his work being ‘unmitigated drivel’, he seems to be qualified. Personally, I would like science to be far more open to ideas that don’t correspond with current thinking. Its determination to instantly reject anything that doesn’t concur with its latest text books or that doesn’t fit in with its currently accepted views, in my opinion, baulks at the fundamental concept of research and discovery. It is not unknown for mainstream science, due to its arrogance, to end up with egg on its face. Active curiosity, even when it does propose what is currently considered to be the impossible, is no bad thing. As someone once said, ‘Intelligence isn’t determined by the answers you give, but by the questions you ask’, or words to that effect – and I agree.
That was perhaps unfortunate because both you and mibn have made a bit much of it. The key was "words to that effect". Obviously he doesn't say that specifically but there is another paper that arrives in my inbox about ones every couple of months or so that does say exactly that, and more, going on about "Sciences and their false belief in Einstein", and proudly proclaiming that the Higgs boson is actually just an atom of Xenon. And it's also drivel.
There are some similarities in the presentation of that paper and this one. The close collegaue thing, again, is a case of taking things just a bit too literally. What I am saying is that he talks about a "private communication with Martin Rees" without giving any details. My claim -- it is only a suspicion, but I think a reasonable one -- is that this took the form of essentially a single email, "read this paper please Martin", with perhaps a very brief reply, possibly not even from Martin Rees but his secretary, in return, thanking Prof. Zhang for his correspondence.
Perhaps I am being unfair, but the manner in which the paper is presented is suggestive of such a scenario. I'm not just talking about the sloppy English. Even the choice of equations doesn't help. It's undergraduate-level General Relativity and that means that there is a tonne of detail that he has, so far as I can tell, not even considered. Black holes within black holes? What about the interactions between them? I cannot for one second believe that the dynamics of such a scenario would not be rather more bizarre than, say, black holes just on the normal background.
But when it comes to this paper it is entirely possible that I lack the necessary understanding to confirm or refute his findings, and so while I remain justifiably sceptical I wouldn't want to rule it out entirely.
But then we come to some of his other papers, including the one found in this issue of the same journal, on page 36 (some of the other articles seem filled with little worth paying attention to either) http://
Now this article I do know about the physical background. And so I can read his paper and understand where it is right, wrong, promising, not worth it. And the short conclusion is that it's not worth it. Doesn't matter who wrote it. It's drivel. I don't even know where to begin deconstructing it. Starting with a discussion of the five elements in Chinese Wu Xing theory doesn't exactly help. A rather bizarre question "What is the weak charge?" posed as if the answer is not actually known or understood, which is false.An amusing little comment " Some studies of particular
particles show that the weak charges might be proportional to
electric charges." (Read: "are proportional, because they emerge from the same unified force, but for some reason I'm not aware of this already"). And so on. And that's just the first two paragraphs.
I'm all for looking into unorthodox views and making sure that we don't reject things definitely, out-of-hand, without considering it. But I've now considered it and there is exactly zero merit whatsoever in the paper of his I've linked to. I could go on debunking it but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. I've read, I've seen, I've given him some time, I've tried to give him a fair hearing -- and I don't think it worth giving him any more attention. I'm sorry if this looks closed-minded but there's not much else I can do.
There are some similarities in the presentation of that paper and this one. The close collegaue thing, again, is a case of taking things just a bit too literally. What I am saying is that he talks about a "private communication with Martin Rees" without giving any details. My claim -- it is only a suspicion, but I think a reasonable one -- is that this took the form of essentially a single email, "read this paper please Martin", with perhaps a very brief reply, possibly not even from Martin Rees but his secretary, in return, thanking Prof. Zhang for his correspondence.
Perhaps I am being unfair, but the manner in which the paper is presented is suggestive of such a scenario. I'm not just talking about the sloppy English. Even the choice of equations doesn't help. It's undergraduate-level General Relativity and that means that there is a tonne of detail that he has, so far as I can tell, not even considered. Black holes within black holes? What about the interactions between them? I cannot for one second believe that the dynamics of such a scenario would not be rather more bizarre than, say, black holes just on the normal background.
But when it comes to this paper it is entirely possible that I lack the necessary understanding to confirm or refute his findings, and so while I remain justifiably sceptical I wouldn't want to rule it out entirely.
But then we come to some of his other papers, including the one found in this issue of the same journal, on page 36 (some of the other articles seem filled with little worth paying attention to either) http://
Now this article I do know about the physical background. And so I can read his paper and understand where it is right, wrong, promising, not worth it. And the short conclusion is that it's not worth it. Doesn't matter who wrote it. It's drivel. I don't even know where to begin deconstructing it. Starting with a discussion of the five elements in Chinese Wu Xing theory doesn't exactly help. A rather bizarre question "What is the weak charge?" posed as if the answer is not actually known or understood, which is false.An amusing little comment " Some studies of particular
particles show that the weak charges might be proportional to
electric charges." (Read: "are proportional, because they emerge from the same unified force, but for some reason I'm not aware of this already"). And so on. And that's just the first two paragraphs.
I'm all for looking into unorthodox views and making sure that we don't reject things definitely, out-of-hand, without considering it. But I've now considered it and there is exactly zero merit whatsoever in the paper of his I've linked to. I could go on debunking it but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. I've read, I've seen, I've given him some time, I've tried to give him a fair hearing -- and I don't think it worth giving him any more attention. I'm sorry if this looks closed-minded but there's not much else I can do.
Jim, //That was perhaps unfortunate because both you and mibn have made a bit much of it.//
//The close collegaue thing, again, is a case of taking things just a bit too literally.//
Hang on – we’re at fault because we read what you said and, quite rightly, pointed out that you had misrepresented the man. How does that work?
//I don't think it worth giving him any more attention.//
Fair enough. You won’t mind if others who may be interested continue the discussion.
//The close collegaue thing, again, is a case of taking things just a bit too literally.//
Hang on – we’re at fault because we read what you said and, quite rightly, pointed out that you had misrepresented the man. How does that work?
//I don't think it worth giving him any more attention.//
Fair enough. You won’t mind if others who may be interested continue the discussion.
It's fair enough for you to point it out, sure. I just feel you were making too much of the specific detail while overlooking the general point that this has the feel of "science spam". I won't insist upon it, though, it's just my impression. As you said earlier, he does seem to at least have some qualifications. I don't know much about Alabama A&M University but other than its being a minor institution it seems to be a legitimate one.
The idea of the Universe being really a Black Hole in some sense has, I think, been suggested before and since this paper was released. So there's still something to discuss. I just wouldn't base it on this particular paper, is all.
The idea of the Universe being really a Black Hole in some sense has, I think, been suggested before and since this paper was released. So there's still something to discuss. I just wouldn't base it on this particular paper, is all.
Hi Jim, and thanks for participating and offering your views.
The paper I linked to was not intended as a necessarily authoritative account on Black hole cosmology, although it did appear to me to contain some interesting ideas on how such a cosmology might play out and was therefore offered as an overview and perhaps a carrot to get the ball rolling. My search continues and in time I hope to present other alternative 'theories' for mutual consideration. In the mean time I encourage you to address any points you find that conflict with current scientific understanding or why you find any of the ideas presented should be dismissed.
Even if someone has been wrong about virtually everything in the past I would hesitate to dismiss everything they have to say out of hand as long as their attempts to discover truths or establish falsehoods remain honest and sincere. More specifics would be appreciated.
Thanks as well to you Naomi for your efforts to keep this discussion on track.
I have some perhaps more mundane (down to earth) things to attend to at the moment but I eagerly look forward to returning to this thread to see what may have developed in my absence so please feel free to carry on.
The paper I linked to was not intended as a necessarily authoritative account on Black hole cosmology, although it did appear to me to contain some interesting ideas on how such a cosmology might play out and was therefore offered as an overview and perhaps a carrot to get the ball rolling. My search continues and in time I hope to present other alternative 'theories' for mutual consideration. In the mean time I encourage you to address any points you find that conflict with current scientific understanding or why you find any of the ideas presented should be dismissed.
Even if someone has been wrong about virtually everything in the past I would hesitate to dismiss everything they have to say out of hand as long as their attempts to discover truths or establish falsehoods remain honest and sincere. More specifics would be appreciated.
Thanks as well to you Naomi for your efforts to keep this discussion on track.
I have some perhaps more mundane (down to earth) things to attend to at the moment but I eagerly look forward to returning to this thread to see what may have developed in my absence so please feel free to carry on.
Thanks -- I'd have to read the article agian before offering anything particularly specific. My impression when I read the one you were linking, though, was that his equations weren't wrong but he was interpreting them badly. But then that seems to amount to calling his entire idea wrong from the start and I suppose I'd be at risk of being accused of dismissing the idea out-of-hand.
The fact is that it's been a while since I've actually done any General Relativity, so I would have to read up on it a lot more if I wanted to offer anything more constructive. I have a general impression and I think it's correct but it's basically just intuition and I wouldn't be surprised if people would want more than that.
As to the other two papers I've referred to, I've no intention of taking the time to read them again. However, if someone is still interested in what he has to say about particle physics, and why I think he's totally wrong, then they can feel free to ask in another thread and I might try to come up with something more than what looks like just an out-of-hand dismissal.
At some point, too, I might try to find other sources for the idea under discussion. I know they must exist, as I've heard this idea or a variant of it before. It is very much a fringe area of Science at the moment; the challenge is that the mainstream version of cosmology is doing a very good job of explaining things already, and it will be hard to overturn that and then do a better job still.
The fact is that it's been a while since I've actually done any General Relativity, so I would have to read up on it a lot more if I wanted to offer anything more constructive. I have a general impression and I think it's correct but it's basically just intuition and I wouldn't be surprised if people would want more than that.
As to the other two papers I've referred to, I've no intention of taking the time to read them again. However, if someone is still interested in what he has to say about particle physics, and why I think he's totally wrong, then they can feel free to ask in another thread and I might try to come up with something more than what looks like just an out-of-hand dismissal.
At some point, too, I might try to find other sources for the idea under discussion. I know they must exist, as I've heard this idea or a variant of it before. It is very much a fringe area of Science at the moment; the challenge is that the mainstream version of cosmology is doing a very good job of explaining things already, and it will be hard to overturn that and then do a better job still.
Okay, I'll start with something deliberately naïve, as usual.
If a single, massive, star collapsing is enough to create an event horizon, why is it that galaxies, consisting of hundreds of millions of stars do not each have their own event horizon? Such a property would render them invisible to external observers, at least across the EM spectrum, the gravitational behaviours would remain.
Sidebar:
I referred to galactic voids in the other recent thread - what if they contained galaxies made inconspicuous in such a way (not so many as to block our line of sight to the more distant side of the void and the galaxies beyond it)?
If a single, massive, star collapsing is enough to create an event horizon, why is it that galaxies, consisting of hundreds of millions of stars do not each have their own event horizon? Such a property would render them invisible to external observers, at least across the EM spectrum, the gravitational behaviours would remain.
Sidebar:
I referred to galactic voids in the other recent thread - what if they contained galaxies made inconspicuous in such a way (not so many as to block our line of sight to the more distant side of the void and the galaxies beyond it)?
I cannot vouch for exactly how, when or where this idea that this universe in which we find ourselves and live at the very least originated as a black hole began to take shape and incite my curiosity but there are many things about such a cosmology that fall in line and appear to have the potential to contribute further to my admittedly very limited knowledge and understanding of how this universe we inhabit began and evolved to its current state of being. It has in fact become somewhat of a touchstone for further exploration, one that I am fully prepared to have ripped out from under me if and when I am provided with information and understanding that dismiss such a possibility, no matter how promising this possibility has at this point in my explorations become.
(My apologies for the long if not rambling 'sentences' that are my attempts to follow my own and possibly reveal my train of thought).
I've chased many a wild goose in my time only to be confronted with yet another dead end but I cherish the knowledge I've gained along the way no less for having acquired it first hand. I've learned very early on not to simply accept whatever someone happened to hand me, no less so when accompanied by threats of what might befall me should I refuse to accept it blindly or without coming to my own first hand understanding of all the implications that lead to and follow from accepting the 'gift' of a Trojan horse.
I'll spare any readers still with me any more of my ramblings for now. Just thought I should give any followers of this thread who might be wondering some notion of where I'm coming from.
(My apologies for the long if not rambling 'sentences' that are my attempts to follow my own and possibly reveal my train of thought).
I've chased many a wild goose in my time only to be confronted with yet another dead end but I cherish the knowledge I've gained along the way no less for having acquired it first hand. I've learned very early on not to simply accept whatever someone happened to hand me, no less so when accompanied by threats of what might befall me should I refuse to accept it blindly or without coming to my own first hand understanding of all the implications that lead to and follow from accepting the 'gift' of a Trojan horse.
I'll spare any readers still with me any more of my ramblings for now. Just thought I should give any followers of this thread who might be wondering some notion of where I'm coming from.
//If a single, massive, star collapsing is enough to create an event horizon, why is it that galaxies, consisting of hundreds of millions of stars do not each have their own event horizon? Such a property would render them invisible to external observers, at least across the EM spectrum, the gravitational behaviours would remain.//
You may well be aware that most galaxies that have been investigated for this do appear to revolve around a rather large black hole. That said the overall matter density of galaxies we can see is too widely dispersed to create an event horizon. This might well bring into question, then how is it that our entire universe which is much more widely dispersed can possibly be contained within a black hole. As it turns out, the larger a black holes, the less concentrated matter is within it. The overall mass or our universe as a whole, given its apparent size, as nearly as both have been ascertained might well fit that profile. I hope this sheds some light on your question.
http://
You may well be aware that most galaxies that have been investigated for this do appear to revolve around a rather large black hole. That said the overall matter density of galaxies we can see is too widely dispersed to create an event horizon. This might well bring into question, then how is it that our entire universe which is much more widely dispersed can possibly be contained within a black hole. As it turns out, the larger a black holes, the less concentrated matter is within it. The overall mass or our universe as a whole, given its apparent size, as nearly as both have been ascertained might well fit that profile. I hope this sheds some light on your question.
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.