|
Aswad -> RE: Dinosaurs (8/13/2012 10:13:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
You have done so well so far, how bout you poke a hole in my theory that the universe is actually a black hole, viewed from inside.
Current findings seem to suggest that the universe changed its macroscopic dimensionality at some point in the past. Something about the polarization of the cosmic microwave background, if memory serves. This also makes intuitive sense: more dimensions for the same energy content gives you less tension, and I'm fairly certain it results in less entropy. Imagine an explosion between a pair of plates. At first, the pressure moves rapidly outwards in a plane, then the plates buckle and the pressure gets to expand in three dimensions instead of two.
I'm not aware of work done in regard to it, but if the timing coincides, such a change could perhaps account for the transition from the inflationary epoch to the calmer universe we see today. This because the reduced tension would show up as a change in the cosmological constant at the point in time when the dimensionality changes. If remaining tension is in the right range, this might also lead to a future change in dimensionality. Of course, this is just idle speculation, and I don't have a particular grasp of mathematics, physics or cosmology, so take it for what it is.
Anyway, if the dimensionality has changed, that does not seem to be in accordance with your black hole hypothesis. A black hole is for causal purposes a two dimensional surface in our universe. In a higher dimensionality universe, one might of course envision a black hole forming with a three dimensional causal surface. However, the internal dimensionality has no reason to change, to the best of my knowledge. The tension is fixed by the gravitational mass of the black hole, and the shape is set by the initial conditions during its collapse. As such, I would not expect to see any indication of such a change.
Seeing as there are indications of such a change, I would say I've poked a hole in your hypothesis. Not necessarily a goatse class hole, but certainly there are testable predictions that follow from the hypothesis, and there appears to be more in favor of it being false than it being validated. Again, I'm not qualified to address it, but to the extent that I'm able, I would tend to reject it as being "probably false" as a hypothesis on which to base a model of our universe- physically or metaphysically.
Entertaining idea, but it didn't keep me busy very long. [:D]
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
