|
FrostedFlake -> RE: Dinosaurs (8/14/2012 11:27:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
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.
That's pretty good, but, I am not so sure it amounts to more than a divot. A Black hole is a bend in or disruption of spacetime to an infinite degree. Infinity is a flexible number that need not remain the same. It worth noting just where in cosmological time the inflationary epoch is postulated to have occurred.
Cite : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
10 to the -36 seconds is an exceedingly short time scale. For comparison, the orbital frequency of a hydrogen electron is 6.6 x 10 to the 15. If there were a hydrogen atom in existence at the beginning of time, it would not have time to complete a single orbit prior to the commencement of the inflationary epoch. Or, for that matter, prior to the end of that epoch. It is essentially indistinguishable from the Big Bang immediately preceding. It could be argued that the scale of the Big Bang was infinite and that the inflation raised that infinity to another infinity roughly 10 to the 78th larger. This would require no energy, because infinity equals infinity even when it doesn't and spacetime has no mass. To put that another way, The Big Bang and the inflationary period need not be interpreted as separate events. And either or both could easily be called a change in macroscopic dimensionality.
Moving on, there is the untidy fact that preceding and following the inflationary epoch the cosmological constant was not constant, nor is it today, and inflation itself has always been identified as an exception to the allegedly constant cosmological constant. From this it follows directly that there may very well be no cosmological constant. I offer tentative explanation for this apparent dimensional instability by pointing at asymmetry in the structure of the parent star of this particular Universe, pre Big Bang. Asymmetry which also neatly accounts for the asymmetry of the Cosmic background radiation and the tendency matter has shown to coalesce into stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, filaments and larger structures while evacuating immense voids in between.
I hope that patched the hole you poked in mine.
|
|
|
|
