National Geographic’s March edition cover story is about black holes.
Readers will recall the recent dustup where Stephen Hawking seemed to pull back from the whole idea, even though it was practically a Hawking brand.
For that, see “Hawking now says there are no black holes” and “Further to Hawking now says there are no black holes.” The free article online offers this:
At the center of a black hole is a conundrum called a singularity. To understand a singularity would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history. You’d first need to invent a new theory—one that went beyond Einstein’s general relativity, which determines the motion of stars and galaxies. And you’d have to surpass quantum mechanics, which predicts what happens to microscopic particles. Both theories are fine approximations of reality, but in a place of extremes, like the interior of a black hole, neither applies.
Singularities are imagined to be extremely tiny. Beyond tiny: Enlarge a singularity a trillion trillion times, and the world’s most powerful microscope wouldn’t come close to seeing it. But something is there, at least in a mathematical sense. Something not just small but also unimaginably heavy. Don’t bother wondering what. The vast majority of physicists say, yes, black holes exist, but they are the ultimate Fort Knox. They’re impenetrable. We will never know what’s inside a singularity.
But a couple of unorthodox thinkers beg to differ. In recent years it’s become increasingly accepted among theoretical physicists that our universe is not all there is. We live, rather, in what’s known as the multiverse—a vast collection of universes, each a separate bubble in the Swiss cheese of reality. This is all highly speculative, but it’s possible that to give birth to a new universe you first need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.
And guess what, the article ends with the suggestion that our universe originated as a black hole in another universe.
The evidence for the proposition is precisely nothing except the fact that someone could think it up.
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Wouldn’t that just add even more fine tuning to this universe if that were the case?
Well it is just fitting that atheistic naturalists would appeal to Black Holes as the creator of the universe for Blackholes are the neo-Darwinian ultimate ‘god of randomness/chaos’ which can create all things (at least according to their ‘random’ postulate at the base of their theory):
First it is important to note that if one wants to build a better random number generator for a computer program then a better source of entropy is required to be found to drive the increased randomness for the program:
Moreover,,,
And the maximum source of entropic randomness/disorder in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest in the universe,,,
In fact the amount of randomness/disorder at the surface (event horizon) of a Black Hole is ‘infinite’:
As well it is important to note that Entropy is the primary reason why our physical bodies eventually grow old and die:
This following video brings the point personally home to each of us about the very destructive effects of entropy on our bodies as they grow older:
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order (1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy, Penrose) we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
Thus in the upside-down world that is atheism, we find naturalists appealing to death and chaos as their ultimate creator, instead of appealing to Almighty God, the source of the universe and all life in the universe, and Who defeated death on the Cross, as their creator.
Quote:
Verse and Music:
Nine Minutes in Heaven – Crystal McVea (Heaven Testimony) – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JEz3tEWXXs
The fool in his heart says “multiverse.”
If a given universe is a subset of matter from a larger universe, wouldn’t that mean that all subsequent universes will progressively get exponentially smaller and smaller to the point that, after a finite amount of time, “univergenesis” will cease? Whatever other things this theory is supposed to explain, I’m not sure such an absurdity solves the fine-tuning problem.
Flying spaghetti multiverses are all the rage…
Dear Rex Tugwell
Exactly what I was wondering.
“For what does it profit a man, to get laughed at for having a theory without evidence, if it doesn’t solve Atheism’s Fine Tuning Problem”. I’ll have to look at whether the National Geographic discussed this. My gut feeling is no.
The agenda here is to make the Multiverse more normal and mainstream among their readership of Upscale Science Groupies. Anyhow, given the National Geographic, the Black Hole must have been be caused by Global Warming.
The idea of new universes being spawned from a black hole is not new.
About 45 years ago, Scientific American published an article showing a gravitational energy well forming a tear-drop shape at the bottom that later disconnects and forms a small, independent spherical universe of its own.
Rather than asymptotically approaching vertical, the author inverted the slope of the GEW curve past vertical briefly, making G infinite as the curve doubled back under itself, and ceased to be a mathematical function.
Even at my tender age, I thought the idea was groundless and stupid, and I canceled my subscription.
-Q
I read about black holes of one universe being the fountain generating all of the contents of another universe.
But this was in a science fiction novel from two or three decades back.
Yeah, they’re called “white holes.” Predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, they supposedly pump out mass and energy from a singularity.
-Q
Indian creation mythology says that the world (i.e. ‘universe’) began from a ‘bindu’, which is a single point (or in some cases “the cosmic egg” – and also the name of the ritual spot on the forehead that Hindus adorn themselves with.) The Universe is then said to expand for periods of ‘aeons of kalpas’ – and, as Carl Sagan noted decades ago, the Hindu mathematicians calculated in terms of quite realistic numbers, astronomically speaking (measured in terms of “days and nights of Brahma”. A ‘day of Brahma’ is 4.32 billion years.) After some period of cosmic ages, the universe collapses again (as everything in nature does) – ad infinitum. This is the ‘myth of eternal return’, the idea that everything repeats in cosmic cycles. But the point is, where the ideas of Black Holes and the origin of universe(s) in eruptions from singularities, is not actually incompatible with such ideas.
. . . except that Indian beliefs came first and might have inspired cosmologists to think along similar lines.
Oh, and I believe that current thinking no longer considers a big crunch possible. At least, gravitational energy alone is insufficient to counter the inflation of space–time.
-Q