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 conditions...is 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 mass...in 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 well...it 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" bubbles...in essence explaining why the "foam" bubbles...it 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.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

http://new.livestream.com/WorldScienceFestival/Multiverse/images/19553755

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

## Comments