Skip to main content

Infinite series of Universes birthing Universes inside black holes is too beautiful not to be true.

A recent article on the singularity inside black holes supposes that maybe they are not each housing a singularity, a point of infinite density and this is an idea I've been partial two for a long time. For the following reasons which have a mathematical basis to them.

Consider this,

If I lived on an asymptotic curve that exists on both sides of the asymptote...I would never know there was an other side. I'd see the approach to the asymptote as properly infinite along the dimension of measure (in this case matter density) but I'd be wrong....

ditto kiddo.

Our theories are ONLY estimations of the reality, the reality is continuous *even across asymptotic bounds* just like the pure mathematics that we use to capture those asymptotic curves.

The history of physical discoveries is a sign of this, one revolution after another pointed out because infinity showed up where it shouldn't have in some theory.....leading us to realize that the *wrong math* was being used (Black body radiation and plane wave propagation is one, another is the early days of quantum electrodynamics), after revision...the infinities went away (in total or part) and more knowledge was gained as theory again tightly predicted reality and opened the door for astonishing discoveries...but there is still much unknown.

This was always my way to make sense of the theory going back 20 years when I first started learning general relativity. Laymen and many trained scientists often forget this fact that mathematics holds the ultimate truth...we need to have the courage to accept that IT and it only is always right, not our interpretations of what IT means.

A friend of mine posed the question later that he always was curious as to what happens to all the matter of baryons in such their not a violation of the Pauli exclusion principle that prevents such matter from ever achieving infinite density? My answer to this question explores the idea of energy and mass equality.

My hypothesis is that there is a conversion of matter to pure energy that fuels dimensional construction in a set of orthogonal dimensions to our own (all of ours) including their own set or sets of temporal dimensions as well as later the formation of new laws that may or may not admit for the formation of order to fuel the expansion of THAT new Universe's spaces and time dimensions..."next to us" in terms of creation but forever pinched from us via the event horizon (which to me stood out because the EH is NOT at the location of the infinite density of the so called singularity).

One might ask, "wait...if new Universes are born in the formation of Black holes in parent Universes...does it mean that there is infinite energy in the multiverse and that violates conservation of energy?" To which the answer is No and Yes. Yes, within each Universe the total energy is fixed BUT  No, when a portion of that energy contributes to creating a new Universe in a black hole it is doing at at it's own relative scales bounded forever behind the EH of the parent Universe...there is no reason to think that a given amount of energy in parent Universe = the same amount in child universe because they have different dimensions...since the Universes are not connected once that EH forms the formation of energy of the black hole is what is available to form new dimensions through which that energy can commute and expand and form elements or not and so on.

Look at the math of it, we know that mathematics says there is an infinite number of divisions between any two integers. We just accept this because works to explain an enormous body of mathematical ideas in fact it is necessary to do so. So how then can the world be properly modeled by mathematical theory if it also doesn't model the infinite content of infinite values in its very fabric?

I assert that you can have Universes spawning from Universes *forever* and not violate conservation of energy in any Universe at the same time just as you can have an infinite set of numbers between 1 and 2 or between .5 and 1 or between .25 and .3 because the boundary (in this case between arbitrary integers) behaves in a way like an event horizon...when a new Universe spawns it has it's own dimensional identity into which what was a finite amount of energy in the parent Universe is an infinite amount in the child Universe because it is expanding into dimensions that it has created independent of the parent.

This is similar to the recently proposed idea (by a physicts I can't recall, though I thought about this idea as a teen) that our universe is inside a black hole. This answer is both incredibly symmetric and incredibly fractal at the same time and to me speaks to a high elegance. It can exist at the same time as an answer to how multiverses are endlessly being created AND subsumes the conditions of Universal expansion described by cosmic inflation as the mechanism behind our Universes (and all Universes) expansion and evolution.

Finally this idea also eliminates the need to explaining the roiling foam idea of a multiverse first proposed in cosmic inflationary theory...the idea of a Universe pinching off from another does not have a mechanism...if they are pinched off via the process of black hole formation then a causal line can efficiently connect parent and child Universes as the "foam" essence explaining why the "foam" would be because there is no foam at all there is only the formation of independent or pinched off Universes inside the black holes that form in all Universes where matter eventually congeals from energy (which is not guaranteed in all Universes). This idea is appealing also because it sets no bounds on the nature of the emerged Universes that come from the parent...even the initiating energy of the parent stars implosion only has meaning in so far that it drove the expansion of the baby Universe and the crystalization of it's spacial and temporal dimensions and then after that because scale selection is arbitrary and independent the initiating energy seems *infinite*...continuing the fractal dance.

To me it is too beautiful to be wrong.



Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …