Black hole being 4d object?

[Watters]

Hi, (not to sure about idea just shooting out my thoguhts)

So in flatland (2d) a person walking towards a sphear (which would look like a slice of a sphear, and there for bea circal) feels a gravitational pull from the 3rd dimension, and feels extreem presure because of it, Now i am just regurgitation stuff, but doesn't it seem liek that is the same stuff that happeds around black holes. ANd if so then how does stacking shpears beside each other make a 4th dimension. (this message makes no sence to anyone who hasn't read flatland) i want other peoples opinion on teh subject.

[elpenmaster]

to make a glome out of spheres, start with an infinitely small sphere (a point) and then add gradually bigger and bigger spheres (each sphere is one infinitieth bigger than the one below it). each sphere is wrapped around the one inside of it but is in a slightly different place in the fourth dimension. after you have gotten to the biggest circle that you want, start making the spheres smaller again but keep them "over" the others in 4-d space. you will eventually end up with another point. theus you have infinite circle stacked around each other (3rd dimension) and over each other (4th dimension)

[wendy]

Black hole is a singularity: ie it is a zero-dimensional thing.

According to the current definition of the universe, the thing is made out of 11=dimensional paper, so it's an 11-dimenional dot, i guess.

[houserichichi]

I wasn't aware that 11-dimensional spacetime was the standard "definition" of the universe. Apparently I didn't get that memo :wink:

[wendy]

Apparently, someone bought a couple of senators for a few ounces of drinking choclate, and they rushed it through the US senate as a public law.

(j.k)

[jinydu]

Black hole is a singularity: ie it is a zero-dimensional thing.

According to the current definition of the universe, the thing is made out of 11=dimensional paper, so it's an 11-dimenional dot, i guess.

Actually, that's just what one version of string theory says. So far, some people like to adopt that view because it solves several theoretical problems. But the theory is far from proven experimentally.

What is fairly well established is that every event can be represented as a point in 4-dimensional spacetime, and that the shape of spacetime is locally altered by the prescence of matter. That's the view according to General Relativity, which is well-supported by numerous experiments.

[wendy]

Singularities appear as 1D things in space-time, since they have a continuing presence. Just because space-time is 4D, it should not be mistaken for four euclidean dimensions.

My views are at http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/gloss/pghtime.html

See also the Widþ entry there.

W

[RQ]

to make a glome out of spheres, start with an infinitely small sphere (a point) and then add gradually bigger and bigger spheres (each sphere is one infinitieth bigger than the one below it). each sphere is wrapped around the one inside of it but is in a slightly different place in the fourth dimension. after you have gotten to the biggest circle that you want, start making the spheres smaller again but keep them "over" the others in 4-d space. you will eventually end up with another point. theus you have infinite circle stacked around each other (3rd dimension) and over each other (4th dimension)

What?

[wendy]

To make a glome (or glomochoron) out of circles, take a large set of circles, all the same size, and fibulate them according to clifford's rule. You will then cover all the points at the same distance from a centre over four dimensions.

Not hard, really.

[RQ]

To make a glome (or glomochoron) out of circles, take a large set of circles, all the same size, and fibulate them according to clifford's rule. You will then cover all the points at the same distance from a centre over four dimensions.

Not hard, really.

Shouldn't they be infinitely larger in size, not the same?

[Gilles]

Hi people,

Apparently, black holes aren't very well understood by science yet...

The laws we know here, are dependent on the mass of our being. Different mass means different laws. They're proportional to ours.
Time goes slower, close to mass, you must have heard of that.
Inside a black hole, time appears to be standing still, but that is only from our point of vieuw.
From inside the black hole, time just goes normally, but time outside the black hole goes extremely fast. The physical laws there are allso proportional to ours, so extremely compact molecules and atoms actualy exist inside black holes, and so does life, it's just a bit smaller. You could, if you wanted, call black holes parallel universes, so they have nothing to do with being one or zero-dimensional, cos the whole thing is just infintitely dimensional (so forget the 11).
By the way, if you think this story can't be true, remember Einstein said that everything is just energy, so it can actualy be, anyway, i beleive in it, havin' invented it myself :wink: .
So infinite mass is just crap, the whole universe consits of structured energy.
For those who beleive in the big bang, and a beginning of time, there was no beginning. The universe we live in, has ever been, and will ever be. No entropy complications needed in this theory, time will not reverse, if our consiounce won't.
Before now, there was just a little more compact universe. It expands forever, but we are also a black hole an a bigger universe. Every universe contains an awfull lot of black holes, wich contain another awfull lot, so, yes, the whole is quite big.
Now forget all that, and live for today. It's all an illusion anyway.

[jinydu]

I can see several problems with your logic here.

Hi people,

Apparently, black holes aren't very well understood by science yet...

The laws we know here, are dependent on the mass of our being.

No, the laws of General Relativity have been shown to work in all mass scales where they have been tested. They certainly don't stop working when you go from the Earth to a body with a different mass (just ask the scientists who managed the Cassini/Huygens probe).Different mass means different laws. They're proportional to ours.

Time goes slower, close to mass, you must have heard of that.

I think you must have read an oversimplified account of General Relativity. The correct statement is that if Observer A is higher in a gravitational field than Observer B, Observer A will claim that Observer B's clocks are running slow. Observer B will disagree; he will claim that his clocks are running normally, whereas Observer A's clocks are running fast.

Inside a black hole, time appears to be standing still, but that is only from our point of vieuw.

This is basically correct, as long as we clarify what we mean by "inside a black hole. The more precise statement is: "Inside the event horizon of a black hole". The event horizon is a (mathematical, not physical) sphere surrounding a singularity (the center of the black hole). Inside the event horizon, the gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light can escape. Thus, since no information comes out (at least, according to Einstein's "classical" theory of black holes), outside observers are not able to observe anything. And if you cannot observe anything, nothing in your view ever changes, so time does appear to stand still.

From inside the black hole, time just goes normally, but time outside the black hole goes extremely fast.

That's right. You would observe the clocks of outside observers as running very fast. In fact, as you passed the event horizon, they would appear to run infinitely fast!

The physical laws there are allso proportional to ours, so extremely compact molecules and atoms actualy exist inside black holes, and so does life, it's just a bit smaller.

No, life as we know it could not survive inside the event horizon, at least not for very long. If you jumped feet-first towards a black hole, the "force" on your feet would be stronger than the "force" on your head. Hence, your feet would accelerate with respect to your head, causing you to break in half. These are known as tidal forces.

Also, what do you mean by "physical laws are proportional to ours"? If you mean that everything is the same, except smaller, this is impossible because, despite what cartoons say, things do not scale proportionally. If you make a cube's length 10 times smaller, its surface area decreases 100 times and its volume decreases 1000 times. And this un-proportional scaling would cause big problems for any living organisms.

You could, if you wanted, call black holes parallel universes, so they have nothing to do with being one or zero-dimensional, cos the whole thing is just infintitely dimensional (so forget the 11).

There's no reason to say that black holes are infinitely dimensional. To do so would be to claim that it is possible to draw infinitely many mutually perpendicular lines through any point in the black hole, and there is certainly no reason to suspect that this is the case. If you base everything on Einstein's General Relativity, a black hole has 4 dimensions of spacetime.

By the way, if you think this story can't be true, remember Einstein said that everything is just energy, so it can actualy be, anyway, i beleive in it, havin' invented it myself :wink: .

Einstein did say that mass is just a form of energy. He definitely didn't say that everything is energy. And I certainly don't see how assuming everything is energy implies that a black hole has infinitely many dimensions, or that different laws are required when you're near different masses.

So infinite mass is just crap, the whole universe consits of structured energy.

Where did infinite mass enter into the discussion. Weren't we talking about black holes?

For those who beleive in the big bang, and a beginning of time, there was no beginning. The universe we live in, has ever been, and will ever be. No entropy complications needed in this theory, time will not reverse, if our consiounce won't. Before now, there was just a little more compact universe.

If you accept that the universe was more compact in the past, doesn't it make sense to suppose that further in the past, it was even more compact? And if you extrapolated far enough into the past, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the universe was infinitely compact at some point? And what does consciousness have to do with the direction of time? The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that the total entropy of the Universe must increase with time. Why is this a complication?

It expands forever, but we are also a black hole an a bigger universe. Every universe contains an awfull lot of black holes, wich contain another awfull lot, so, yes, the whole is quite big.
Now forget all that, and live for today. It's all an illusion anyway.

If our Universe will expand forver, how can it be a black hole on a bigger Universe? A black hole, if you believe Einstein, only expands when it gains energy. So if our Universe was a black hole, it would need some supply of energy to keep it expanding. Where would this supply come from, to keep it expanding forever?

Furthermore, where is the evidence that each black hole is another universe? Have you heard of any observations that support this idea?

[PWrong]

For those who beleive in the big bang, and a beginning of time, there was no beginning. The universe we live in, has ever been, and will ever be. No entropy complications needed in this theory, time will not reverse, if our consiounce won't. Before now, there was just a little more compact universe.

So we should discard the big bang theory, despite the evidence, simply because it is less complicated?

By the way, what's Clifford's rule, and how do you fibulate something? Even Google wasn't much help with this one.

[wendy]

What we're looking at is "clifford parallels". These are all great circles on a 4-sphere, all equidistant from each other. There is a parallel through every point on the surface.

If you have x1 = r cos wt, x2 = r sin wt, you get a circle.

If you set x3 = r cos wt , x4 = r sin wt, you get an orthoginal circle.

You can then set any circle by solving (this is again a rotating sphere).

x1 = r cos f cos wt x2 = r cos f sin wt
x3 = r sin f cos wt+a x4 = r sin f cos wt + a

This maps every point as a function of wt, f, a

But for a fixed 0 < f < 90, 0 < a < 360, one gets a great circle traced by wt.

The tracks of all points trace out a "fibery" surface.

The coordinate system R,2f, a makes for a spherical coordinate system, and replacing R, 2f, a by R, f, a, wt for the great circle wt, one gets what is called Hopf fibulation, but Clifford discovered it earlier by means of his parallels, so i call it Clifford fibulation.

Oj

[Gilles]

Hi Jinydu (again)
I just wrote an awfull lot, and then pushed a button and lost it all.

You want me to ask something to the scientists of cassini/huygens, but as far as I know, they haven't been outside this solar system, so they can't prove me either right or wrong.
The fact that I didn't speak in terms as event horizon and observer A and B, doesn't mean that I haven't heard of them, I've read of the theories aswell, but I assumed everyone on this forum did, so I wanted to keep it simple.
I'd like to skip our communication problems (and our discussion on the dimensions, cos apparently they are too abstract.) and move over to the idea of life inside a black hole.
Acoording to our physic laws, a black hole can't exist. There's no (mathematical) law that integrates quantum physics and gravity. The only thing I state, is that the quantum laws are the gravity laws, but in a different proportion. As the view (conscience, I'm sorry, I have to use the word again, cos it's in fact the only thing we're "sure" of) changes, so do the laws, but they do not actualy differ, they just appear to.
You tell me that there's no possibility to life inside a black hole, but you know as well as I do, that you don't have evindence for that either. You might have some mathematical formula's, but black holes aren't actualy understood (yet). I only say that life as we know it could exist in a black hole. No proof, just a possibility, and quantum physics states that all possibilities actualy exist. So aswell as there is life in black holes, there isn't life in black holes, life as we know it, and life that we can't even imagine.
Now, you might forget that part, cos it get's quite complicated, but I'd like to get on to the 2nd law of thermodynamics now.
As you said, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that the total entropy of the Universe must increase with time. Why is this a complication? ". The complication of it is, that there must have been a state of minimal entropy.
We might both agree that there wasn't, cos it's just ridiculous, but that would make us be able to go back in time forever. This makes the universe of the infinite past infinitely compact. So we agree, but infinite time is needed for that. And a big bang, contradicts infinite time...
The universe of the past was more compact then it is now, if, and only if, it has an end. If the universe is of infinite size, then it has allways been like that, it's just the point were you're standing, that determines how big it is. The size of the univers, is the distance at wich it can be observed, or thought. As we can't see that far into the past, it's hard to tell if a theory is right or wrong, so you just take the theory that works best for the situation. The big bang theory contradicts ideas, that the infinite time theory doesn't, so why not accept it?
I'd accept the reason "because there's no legitimate scientist who says so", but i think it interesting to think about those things myself aswell, instead of reading only. They can't realy be more sure about it then me, so why not invent a better theory?

Next question you asked me:
If our Universe will expand forver, how can it be a black hole on a bigger Universe? A black hole, if you believe Einstein, only expands when it gains energy. So if our Universe was a black hole, it would need some supply of energy to keep it expanding. Where would this supply come from, to keep it expanding forever?

You ask for an energy supply for black holes? Where do you think the light goes, that black holes keep absorbing? That's energy, my friend. The universe our universe is a black hole in, supplies us energy, aswell as we supply energie to the "smaller" universes. Everything grows, but at the same time it shrinks, cos time is an illusion, the thing that connects spaces, why would it have a direction? So at the same time the black holes in a universe supply the enery to a univers, as in the other way.

There are no observations supporting this idea, no. And they'll never come, cos it's hard to communicate with universes were time goes slower or faster. It will take us a long time to get a reply from a black hole, and so will it take a long time for bigger universes, to get our messages. The only was to do it, are to overcome time, or to become the universe, wich appears quite hard to me.

Bye

[jinydu]

Acoording to our physic laws, a black hole can't exist.

General Relativity allows black holes to exist. Its just that, according to current thinking, General Relativity doesn't provide a full description of black holes. The main problem is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics give contradictory predictions about what happens at the singularity. But astronomers routinely make use of General Relativity to study black holes: such as calculating the black hole's mass based on observations of the orbits of nearby matter around the black hole. Today, astronomers are quite sure that black holes really do exist, since they have observed many systems where General Relativity predicts the existence of a black hole, and where no other satisfactory explanation exists.

You tell me that there's no possibility to life inside a black hole, but you know as well as I do, that you don't have evindence for that either. You might have some mathematical formula's, but black holes aren't actualy understood (yet). I only say that life as we know it could exist in a black hole. No proof, just a possibility, and quantum physics states that all possibilities actualy exist. So aswell as there is life in black holes, there isn't life in black holes, life as we know it, and life that we can't even imagine.

Although there is currently no fully accepted theory of quantum gravity, based on its success in numerous gravitational experiments, it is a good bet that General Relativity gives an overall good description of black holes, as long as you're not too close to the singularity. General Relativity predicts that any object inside the event horizon would travel towards the singularity, encountering ever more extreme tidal forces along the way, tidal foces that would eventually become powerful enough to tear any known living organism to shreds. The fact that the prediction of tidal forces comes out of General Relativity, in my opinion, is good evidence that life could not survive inside a black hole.

Now, you might forget that part, cos it get's quite complicated, but I'd like to get on to the 2nd law of thermodynamics now.
As you said, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that the total entropy of the Universe must increase with time. Why is this a complication? ". The complication of it is, that there must have been a state of minimal entropy.
We might both agree that there wasn't, cos it's just ridiculous, but that would make us be able to go back in time forever.

I disagree. In fact, I would say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes out squarely on the side of the Big Bang, as opposed to an infinite time theory.

If the Universe really was infinitely old, you would expect that everything would already be in its most stable state. Surely, if an infinite amount of time had already passed, all macroscopic kinetic energy would have been lost to friction (either that, or the object would be so far away from all other objects that its effect on the rest of the universe is negligible). And surely, since fusing two hydrogen nuclei together releases energy, while doing the opposite requires energy, all the hydrogen in the universe should have disappeared an eternity ago. The fact that entropy still has room to go, that useful energy still exists, that irreversible processes can still occur, is, in my opinion, conclusive evidence that the universe can't possibly be infinitely old.

What's wrong with minimum entropy? The Big Bang, via its claim that the universe is only finitely old, provides an explanation for why irreversible processes can still take place. In short, the Universe has not yet used up all of its useful energy, or the entropy has not yet reached its maximum value. In fact, I find it absurd to imagine that the Universe didn't have a state of minimum entropy. Certainly, its not hard to imagine a system with maximum order, even if this state cannot be attained in practice, and a system without such a state would be a very bizarre system indeed.

This makes the universe of the infinite past infinitely compact. So we agree, but infinite time is needed for that. And a big bang, contradicts infinite time...

Once again, the Big Bang has an answer for this. If we assume that the Universe's size is finite, then clearly, it would be possible for the Universe to be infinitely compact at some finite time in the past.

The universe of the past was more compact then it is now, if, and only if, it has an end.

What does the end of the universe have to do with whether or not it was more compact in the past? Surely, one can imagine a formerly compact universe that doesn't have an end (eternal expansion) or a formerly compact universe that does have an end (perhaps in a Big Crunch).

The big bang theory contradicts ideas, that the infinite time theory doesn't, so why not accept it?

Because there is plenty of observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory (Hubble's Law, the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.) and some logical reasons to support it (the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Olber's Paradox, etc.)

You ask for an energy supply for black holes? Where do you think the light goes, that black holes keep absorbing? That's energy, my friend. The universe our universe is a black hole in, supplies us energy, aswell as we supply energie to the "smaller" universes.

There are several problems with that explanation. If our universe is being fed energy from an outside universe, then the total amount of energy in our universe would increase with time. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy.

According to General Relativity, the curvature of spacetime near a black hole is generally very large. Yet astronomers have performed measurements to determine the overall curvature of the universe, on the largest scales. See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html. Within the limits of experimental error, the Universe, on the largest scales, is flat.

If the universe was a black hole, it would have to have a singularity. Thus, we would expect a non-uniform distribution of velocities at the largest scales. More objects should be moving towards the singularity than moving away from it. Furthermore, we would also expect a very large concentration of matter in a small space (sort of like the clump at the center of the Milky Way, except, of course, it would be far larger). No such clump has been observed.

Everything grows, but at the same time it shrinks, cos time is an illusion, the thing that connects spaces, why would it have a direction?

I think you already know the answer to this question. In one word: entropy.

There are no observations supporting this idea, no. And they'll never come,

Well, that's a fatal flaw to any scientific theory. Theories must be testable.

[Gilles]

The very problem in your reasoning, Jindy, is that you only speak about the general relativity theory.
We don't only have that theory, we also have quantum physics.

General relativity looks at blank holes from outside, and what may appear to happen from outside, is not necesarily happening inside. It might just be depending on where you look at it.

I'm just stating, that integrating the two, leads to a vision of black holes as parralel universes. No proofs. I'm not good enough in maths for that, and I don't want to force you to beleive me. It might be a bit contradictory with your point of view, but hasen't it allways been the case with new scientific theories?

[jinydu]

The very problem in your reasoning, Jindy, is that you only speak about the general relativity theory.

As far as we know, General Relativity provides a very good description of black holes, at least if you don't get too close to the singularity.

We don't only have that theory, we also have quantum physics.

General relativity looks at blank holes from outside, and what may appear to happen from outside, is not necesarily happening inside. It might just be depending on where you look at it.

First of all, if you mean that General Relativity only describes what goes on outside, then that's wrong. General Relativity also describes (or at least attempts to describe) what goes on inside. But if you mean that General Relativity makes predictions about what outside observers see, then yes, it does. As far as observational evidence goes, the only information we will ever get from black holes, at least in the forseeable future, will come from outside. Of course, it could be that all current theories about what goes on inside are wrong, and there in fact dancing pink elephants in there. But since current theories do a good enough job of describing what has been observed from outside, there's no reason to adopt such a view.

I'm just stating, that integrating the two, leads to a vision of black holes as parralel universes.

In short, that is false. Quantum physics does not predict the existence of parallel universes in a black hole. It does predict that spacetime oscillates chaotically near the singularity.

No proofs. I'm not good enough in maths for that, and I don't want to force you to beleive me. It might be a bit contradictory with your point of view, but hasen't it allways been the case with new scientific theories?

No, it hasn't. Successful scientific theories have come from people who had a good understanding of existing theories, as well as their limitations. Furthermore, many of these successful theories arose to deal with the failure of existing theories to explain experimental results. A classic example is quantum mechanics. It was developed because classical mechanics gave (wildly) inaccurate predictions about blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect.

[Gilles]

Gilles wrote:
I'm just stating, that integrating the two, leads to a vision of black holes as parralel universes.


In short, that is false. Quantum physics does not predict the existence of parallel universes in a black hole. It does predict that spacetime oscillates chaotically near the singularity.

I didn't say quantum physics alone did so, i said the integration of quantum physics and the relativity theory does so.

And a chaotic oscillation looks like a contradiction to me. Then again I wonder what spacetime in our universe is doing?

[jinydu]

I didn't say quantum physics alone did so, i said the integration of quantum physics and the relativity theory does so.

No it doesn't. Where did you get such incorrect information?

[Gilles]

I got my incorrect information out of the 5th dimension, thought itself. Other entities sent me what I wanted to catch.
But I know it's always easyest and safest to hold on to what you've learnt.

Anyway, in science, quantum mechanics and the relativity theory haven't been integrated, so it's a bit silly to say

No it doesn't

if you don't have a better suggestion. Or do you?

[houserichichi]

The word "dimension" is a mathematical one - at least in the case that Jinydu if using it. If you want to talk physics you have to speak math - and thought, unfortunatley, is not a mathematical structure. What you're speaking of is metaphysics (or at least meta-religion) which has very loose connections to reality (as far as accepted experiment and theory goes).

If anything, this board would need a fourth topic other than General, Geometry, and Space&Time to fit in what you talk about...yours isn't science, it's metascience and philosophy at best. You should request a forum to discuss your thoughts freely!!! :wink:

[jinydu]

I got my incorrect information out of the 5th dimension, thought itself. Other entities sent me what I wanted to catch.
But I know it's always easyest and safest to hold on to what you've learnt.

Mhmmm. Could I see some evidence please?

[Gilles]

If anything, this board would need a fourth topic other than General, Geometry, and Space&Time to fit in what you talk about...yours isn't science, it's metascience and philosophy at best. You should request a forum to discuss your thoughts freely!!!

Just trying to open some minds here, one would be enough to me.

[immitation crab salad]

If all life uses chemicals, how can life exist in a blackhole where the forces are so great that the atoms are broken up into subatomic particles, so there could be no chemicals that life uses because there is no whole atoms???

(I'm not completely positive that my info is correct, so feel free to tell me if my info is wrong)

[jinydu]

If all life uses chemicals, how can life exist in a blackhole where the forces are so great that the atoms are broken up into subatomic particles, so there could be no chemicals that life uses because there is no whole atoms???

(I'm not completely positive that my info is correct, so feel free to tell me if my info is wrong)

I agree. Complex molecules (let alone life) cannot exist inside a black hole, since the tidal forces would tear them apart.

[wendy]

Why do you assume life requires chemicals to exist?

This, i should imagine, is a frightfully parochial view of things, since you equate "life" as "life as we know it".

[houserichichi]

If "life" doesn't require chemicals then the closest thing to what I can imagine you're referring to would be souls...and where in physics do those lie? Or did I misinterpret what you meant?

[wendy]

A living thing is something different to a non-living thing, or something that is comose. What makes this so: it certianly is not the chemicals, since these exist before and after.

A living thing does not become living because the chemicals are present. It needs something else.

And in the theories of scale, something like cities are living things, yet have no body.

What then is life, if not a resident soul?

[brasileiro]

Hi, (not to sure about idea just shooting out my thoguhts)

So in flatland (2d) a person walking towards a sphear (which would look like a slice of a sphear, and there for bea circal) feels a gravitational pull from the 3rd dimension, and feels extreem presure because of it, Now i am just regurgitation stuff, but doesn't it seem liek that is the same stuff that happeds around black holes. ANd if so then how does stacking shpears beside each other make a 4th dimension. (this message makes no sence to anyone who hasn't read flatland) i want other peoples opinion on teh subject.

Exactly dude, it doesn't make sense to any of us... some of us can kinda sorta comprehend it. Think about it. Did it make any sense to Fred when they told him to imagine a sphere? or a cube? no, it didn't. Because he didn't know exactly what it looked like. And when it passed through his realm, he didn't know wtf happened. like us. We can't exactly comprehend what goes on in tetraspace, and as much as we talk about it, unless we can physically see it (and scramble our brains to figure out HOW at the same time) then we can't fully comprehend it.