Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: "Some Black Holes Erase Your Past and Give You Unlimited Futures"

  1. #1
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts

    "Some Black Holes Erase Your Past and Give You Unlimited Futures"

    Once again scientists are discarding the non-physical aspects of consciousness — they should talk to their colleagues more often — but from the purely mathematical and physics standpoints, it is certainly intriguing: black holes as portals to other universes.









    "In some cases, one can live forever in a universe unknown."


    Source: Motherboard


    Imagine, for a moment, that our species has perfected interstellar space travel and we can visit anywhere we want in the universe. There will be a lot of interesting places to check out and astrophysical phenomena to investigate, but a trip to a black hole will surely be at the top of the itinerary. Why would anyone want to visit something from which nothing, not even light, can escape? Mostly because physicists have debated for decades what will happen if someone were to enter one.

    A caveat here: Most physicists harbor little doubt that you would be ripped to shreds long before you came anywhere near smaller black holes (the technical term is 'spaghettified,’ where intense gravitational forces stretch you into a string of atoms). But— but—new research from an international team of mathematicians suggests that there may be certain black holes that are theoretically accessible to an observer, albeit with bizarre consequences.

    As detailed in a report published last week in Physical Review Letters, observers entering certain kinds of theoretical black holes wouldn’t necessarily be obliterated—or at least not in the way you’re probably imagining. Instead, an observer’s entrance into these black holes would destroy their past and potentially open up an infinite number of futures. They’d never emerge from the black hole to tell their tale, but that doesn’t really matter—they’d have no one from their past to return to anyway.



    MUCH ADO ABOUT BLACK HOLES

    There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with some background. You may have heard of this guy named Albert Einstein who, among other things, fundamentally changed the way we thought about space and time when he published his general theory of relativity about a century ago.

    Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes gravity as a property of spacetime, a four-dimensional scaffolding that is ubiquitous in the universe. More to the point, the theory described the curvature of spacetime as a function of matter’s mass, energy, and motion. This curvature of spacetime by objects in motion is felt as gravity.

    One of the phenomena predicted by the general theory is the existence of spacetime singularities in black holes, a mass that is so dense that nothing can escape its gravitational effects—not even light. For our purposes, a black hole might be imagined as a funnel whose spout tapers to a point of infinite density known as a singularity.

    The structure of these singularities is a subject of contention among physicists. We can’t see them because a black hole’s event horizon effectively acts as a barrier between these infinite densities and the rest of the universe. This is a good thing because if we could see the singularities at the heart of black hole—what is called a ‘naked’ singularity—this would destroy the determinism that is fundamental to physics.

    The reason that physics can be used to predict things in nature is because the universe is deterministic. What this means is that if you knew the exact starting conditions of the universe, you could theoretically predict exactly how the universe would develop over time from those initial conditions. This would also include your thoughts and actions since, as cognitive scientists like Dan Dennett have argued, consciousness is determined by material interactions among neurons. The important thing here is that determinism means that the past determines exactly one future.

    So physicists are presented with a problem: Singularities must exist as a consequence to the theory of general relativity, but observing these singularities seems to be impossible. To account for this discrepancy, physicists rely on two related, but logically distinct conjectures, both originally developed by the physicist Roger Penrose nearly 50 years ago: the strong and weak cosmic censorship hypotheses.

    The strong cosmic censorship hypothesis states that there is a boundary within the event horizon of black holes known as the Cauchy horizon that is a limit to the applications of the theory of general relativity. Beyond the Cauchy horizon, the deterministic physical world breaks down into indeterminacy. A consequence of this is that it is impossible for an observer to transcend the Cauchy horizon without being destroyed (more on this later).

    The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that naked singularities don’t exist in the universe, apart from the Big Bang. Today, Penrose’s weak cosmic censorship hypothesis is widely held to be a necessary condition of the universe by physicists, although its validity is still an open question.

    The strong cosmic hypothesis is much more contentious, and the new research published this week offers the strongest refutation of its validity yet. UC Berkeley postdoc Peter Hintz and his colleagues’ paper suggests that there are some types of black holes in the universe that would allow an observer access to the indeterministic universe on the other side of a black hole’s Cauchy horizon.





    BLACK HOLES, SON

    For the last century, Einstein’s theory of relativity has managed to predict the results of every test thrown at it. Perhaps its strongest validation occurred in 2016, when physicists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory managed to measure gravitational waves produced by two colliding black holes for the first time, exactly as Einstein’s theory predicted. Yet general relativity’s ability to describe gravity falters on the threshold of singularities, where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite.

    Let us imagine that we are space explorers again and that we are approaching the type of theoretical black hole studied by Hintz and his colleagues: A non-rotating black hole with an electrical charge known as a Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black hole. According to the general theory, as we approach the black hole, time begins to slow down due to the increasing strength of the gravitational field. As we fall into the black hole, we would also see all the light and matter falling in as well. Eventually we would reach the Cauchy horizon, an object within the event horizon found in these types of black holes.



    The Cauchy horizon can be thought of as the barrier between the deterministic and non-deterministic universe. After an observer crosses this threshold, the past no longer determines the future. An observer crossing this threshold would, as a result, actually see all the energy the black hole will ever encounter over the entire existence of the universe hitting its Cauchy horizon at the same time. This is why the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis states that it is impossible for an observer to pass over the Cauchy horizon—they would be totally obliterated by all that energy.

    Yet Hintz and his colleagues realized that this wasn’t necessarily the case, since the universe is also expanding at an accelerating rate. This means that while spacetime is condensing to an infinite point in a black hole, it is also being pulled apart or stretched by the expansion of the universe. So rather than all the energy in the universe hitting the Cauchy horizon at the same time, only a relatively small portion of the energy in the universe makes it to the black hole because that energy can’t travel from the farthest corners of the universe to the black hole faster than the speed of light.

    As detailed by Hintz and his colleagues, the amount of energy that will fall into the black hole is only the amount of energy contained within the observable horizon from the black hole’s perspective. This observable horizon is ‘smaller’ than the whole universe because the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

    To see why this is the case, consider our perspective on Earth. Although we can see 13.8 billion years in the past, our observable horizon is actually around 46 billion light years since it includes everything we will see in the future. We will never be able to see ‘further’ than this because the universe is expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light, so the light from objects beyond this cosmological horizon will never reach us and objects on the ‘brink’ of this horizon will eventually fade and disappear from our perspective.

    The same is true for the theoretical Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black hole we are visiting. The accelerating expansion of the universe essentially ‘cancels’ the time dilation experienced while falling into the black hole under certain conditions. This would, in theory, allow an observer to pass through the Cauchy horizon and exist in a non-deterministic world where their past no longer determines their future. For all intents and purposes, crossing this threshold obliterates the observer’s past by opening up an infinite number of possible futures.

    “There are some exact solutions of Einstein’s equations that are perfectly smooth, with no kinks, no tidal forces going to infinity, where everything is perfectly well behaved up to this Cauchy horizon and beyond,” Hintz said. “After that, all bets are off; in some cases, one can avoid the central singularity altogether and live forever in a universe unknown.”

    This is all theoretical, of course. Hintz and his colleagues aren’t suggesting that a physicist ever will travel to the inside of one of these types of black holes. In fact, Hintz said, these charged black holes used in the model might not even exist. The reason is that a charged black holes would attract oppositely charged matter and eventually become neutral. Still the mathematical model is useful as a way of studying rotating black holes, which Hintz said are probably the norm.

    “No physicist is going to travel into a black hole and measure it,” Hintz said. “This is a question one can really only study mathematically, but it has physical, almost philosophical implications. From that point of view, this makes Einstein’s equations mathematically more interesting.”


    Source: Motherboard
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (27th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), enjoy being (27th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), Lemual (7th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018), Wind (27th February 2018)

  3. #2
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    I’m starting to become an Electric Universe convert. So I view these “standard physics” articles with a fair amount of skepticism.

    ...btw, I’m up to believing at least 2 impossible things by breakfast.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), enjoy being (27th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  5. #3
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,354
    Thanks
    1,553
    Thanked 5,535 Times in 1,305 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dumpster Diver View Post
    I’m starting to become an Electric Universe convert.
    David Wilcock has pointed out that Electric Universe needs to also incorporate the electron as a vortex, or something along those lines, to flesh out the theory, right?

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (27th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), enjoy being (27th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

  7. #4
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by KeepTrying View Post
    David Wilcock has pointed out that Electric Universe needs to also incorporate the electron as a vortex, or something along those lines, to flesh out the theory, right?
    ...if it’s imposible, I’ll buy it for a dollar.
    Last edited by Dumpster Diver, 27th February 2018 at 16:17.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), enjoy being (27th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  9. #5
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,685 Times in 2,094 Posts
    Did you spy the link I posted in two other threads earlier Dumpster Diver? I'd saved it a few years back but then got side tracked and not gone back to it. A bit of everything in some ways, 'some guys' compilings, www.human-resonance.org some of it I can understand, some of it I can intuit, some of it compares to various prophecy, a box of jigsaw pieces perhaps.

    Things like this found in there, http://www.human-resonance.org/electron.html pity the website is a bit of a maze.
    Last edited by enjoy being, 27th February 2018 at 14:25.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  11. #6
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Nothing View Post
    Did you spy the link I posted in two other threads earlier Dumpster Diver? I'd saved it a few years back but then got side tracked and not gone back to it. A bit of everything in some ways, 'some guys' compilings, www.human-resonance.org some of it I can understand, some of it I can intuit, some of it compares to various prophecy, a box of jigsaw pieces perhaps.

    Things like this found in there, http://www.human-resonance.org/electron.html pity the website is a bit of a maze.
    Alright, more puzzle pieces!

    ...looks like an interesting site, thanks!

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), enjoy being (27th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  13. #7
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,354
    Thanks
    1,553
    Thanked 5,535 Times in 1,305 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dumpster Diver View Post
    ...it it’s imposible, I’ll buy it for a dollar.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

  15. #8
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by KeepTrying View Post
    Paul Verhoven’s Robocop...


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc


    Also corrected the misspelling in my original post.
    Last edited by Dumpster Diver, 27th February 2018 at 16:17. Reason: fixed your video link... again :p

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  17. #9
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,354
    Thanks
    1,553
    Thanked 5,535 Times in 1,305 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dumpster Diver View Post
    ...it it’s imposible . . .
    Huh?

    Do you remember David Wilcock commenting on Corey Goode's statement that the Electric Universe people are essentially correct?

    By adding that the vortex should be interjected, or something like that?


  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

  19. #10
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by KeepTrying View Post
    Huh?

    Do you remember David Wilcock commenting on Corey Goode's statement that the Electric Universe people are essentially correct?

    By adding that the vortex should be interjected, or something like that?

    I corrected my original misspelling.

    ...anyway, yes, DW says EU is correct. Plus you have Ben Davidson’s guys mostly on board EU. I’m stil trying to get how black holes figure into EU, and it seems it doesn’t really fit. I’m trying to reprogram my brain as I was totally invested into the Einstein/modern physics world. Also how wrong is Quantum Mechanics?

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

  21. #11
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dumpster Diver View Post
    ...anyway, yes, DW says EU is correct. Plus you have Ben Davidson’s guys mostly on board EU. I’m stil trying to get how black holes figure into EU, and it seems it doesn’t really fit. I’m trying to reprogram my brain as I was totally invested into the Einstein/modern physics world. Also how wrong is Quantum Mechanics?
    Both General Relativity and quantum physics have already long proven themselves correct in their respective fields — time and time again, with each empirical test. The electric universe theory on the other hand, while interesting, still has everything to prove so far, and still hasn't even made an effort yet at doing so.

    Not only are there no failed experiments at proving Einstein and quantum physics wrong, but there simply haven't been any such experiments at all.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  23. #12
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,602
    Thanks
    12,814
    Thanked 13,156 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Both General Relativity and quantum physics have already long proven themselves correct in their respective fields — time and time again, with each empirical test. The electric universe theory on the other hand, while interesting, still has everything to prove so far, and still hasn't even made an effort yet at doing so.

    Not only are there no failed experiments at proving Einstein and quantum physics wrong, but there simply haven't been any such experiments at all.
    Yes, this is my problem as well. I see too much I like in both areas, Quantum mechanics especially.

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), Lemual (7th March 2018), WantDisclosure (27th February 2018)

  25. #13
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,354
    Thanks
    1,553
    Thanked 5,535 Times in 1,305 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Both General Relativity and quantum physics have already long proven themselves correct in their respective fields — time and time again, with each empirical test. The electric universe theory on the other hand, while interesting, still has everything to prove so far, and still hasn't even made an effort yet at doing so.

    Not only are there no failed experiments at proving Einstein and quantum physics wrong, but there simply haven't been any such experiments at all.
    We all know experiments have to be funded.

    Also, all results have to be interpreted.

    And there is also fraud sometimes.

    Quote Originally posted by Dumpster Diver View Post
    I corrected my original misspelling.

    ...anyway, yes, DW says EU is correct. Plus you have Ben Davidson’s guys mostly on board EU. I’m stil trying to get how black holes figure into EU, and it seems it doesn’t really fit. I’m trying to reprogram my brain as I was totally invested into the Einstein/modern physics world. Also how wrong is Quantum Mechanics?
    But I did hear DW say that with a caveat. There is more to it. I believe Nassim Haramein has addressed what's missing. Haramein has used Einstein as a foundation, and built upon it.

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (27th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

  27. #14
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    I remember reading a few years ago Wilcock's model of the Universe. Then I think he was suggesting something more mundane like 3 time dimensions and a single physical to explain our experience. He went from suggesting a different model to creating an entirely new Universe. I was confused by the jump as it lacked coherent steps from one to the other so it lost credibility in my estimation.

    It is an interesting conjecture that is proposed here...but it is relegated to mathematical analysis for the immediate future and and in this timeline (that's for you Mr. Dumpster)

    So in the depths of a black hole and at the outreaches of the observable universe we have balancing forces. It seems to me that might be relevant at a very Grand Scale where another form of physics could explain its ramifications on existence, but who would grasp it, map it, and make it relevant? Actually, perhaps a melding of relativity and quantum theory. If one starts out now...
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (28th February 2018), Dreamtimer (28th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (28th February 2018), Elen (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018), WantDisclosure (28th February 2018)

  29. #15
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    I remember reading a few years ago Wilcock's model of the Universe. Then I think he was suggesting something more mundane like 3 time dimensions and a single physical to explain our experience. He went from suggesting a different model to creating an entirely new Universe. I was confused by the jump as it lacked coherent steps from one to the other so it lost credibility in my estimation.
    Actually, to be precise, David Wilcock's model of the universe was that the observable reality has three physical dimensions and one temporal dimension, and that the spiritual reality has three temporal dimensions and one physical dimension.

    Now, I don't know where he got that information about the spiritual reality, but we already know through both experiments with and the formulas of quantum physics that the universe — the spiritual aspect not included — has at least 10 or 11 dimensions, and in a certain model even 26 dimensions. Just because we cannot see them doesn't mean they're not there.

    When it comes to science, David Wilcock is a bit of a hit-and-miss. He's right about certain things, and he's also dead wrong about many other things. I'm not going to go so far as to pin a percentage to it, but that's pretty much how it is with him.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (1st March 2018), Dumpster Diver (1st March 2018), Elen (3rd March 2018), Emil El Zapato (28th February 2018), Kathy (12th March 2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •