Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

National Geographic introduces multiverse, suggests our universe arose from a black hole in another

Thumbnail for version as of 02:40, 8 September 2006
black hole/Alain r

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!

. . . 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 Querius
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. jeeprs
Yeah, they're called "white holes." Predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, they supposedly pump out mass and energy from a singularity. -Q Querius
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. EvilSnack
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 Querius
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. chris haynes
Flying spaghetti multiverses are all the rage... lpadron
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.
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. RexTugwell
The fool in his heart says "multiverse." geoffrobinson
Nine Minutes in Heaven - Crystal McVea (Heaven Testimony) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JEz3tEWXXs bornagain77
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:
Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator By the way, if you need some really good random numbers, go here: http://www.random.org/bytes/ These are truly random (not pseudo-random) and are generated from atmospheric noise (entropy). per Gil Dodgen
Entropy Excerpt: It is often said that entropy is an expression of the disorder, or randomness of a system, or of our lack of information about it (which on some views of probability, amounts to the same thing as randomness). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist of the first half of last century
And the maximum source of entropic randomness/disorder in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest in the universe,,,
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe “But why was the big bang so precisely organized (1 in 10^10^123), whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang?
In fact the amount of randomness/disorder at the surface (event horizon) of a Black Hole is 'infinite':
"Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist." Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476
As well it is important to note that Entropy is the primary reason why our physical bodies eventually grow old and die:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. per Dr. John Sanford
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:
Aging Process – 80 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk
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!
Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by physics: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/cosmology/the-no-black-holes-uproar-a-week-later/#comment-489771
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:
GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946) “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’” Gilbert Newton Lewis
Verse and Music:
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. Creed – One Last Breath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkuBUAwfe0
Wouldn't that just add even more fine tuning to this universe if that were the case? fryether

Leave a Reply