The current widely-held theory of life, the universe, and everything holds that at some point roughly 13.7 billion years ago everything that now is was packed into a tight little package from which sprung the Big Bang, which violently hurled everything into existence. But 13.7 billion years to get to where we are isn't enough for renowned physicist Sir Roger Penrose, and now he thinks he can prove that things aren't/weren't quite so simple. Drawing on evidence he found in the cosmic microwave background, Penrose says the Big Bang wasn't the beginning, but one in a series of cyclical Big Bangs, each of which spawned its own universe.
By Penrose's estimation, our universe is not the first – nor will it be the last – to spawn from a dense mass of highly-ordered everything into the complex universe we see around us. In fact, it's that high degree of order that was apparently present at the universe's birth that set him on this line of thought. The current Big Bang model doesn't supply a reason as to why a low entropy, highly ordered state existed at the birth of our universe unless things were set in order before the Big Bang occurred.
According to Penrose, each universe returns to a state of low entropy as it approaches its final days of expanding into eventual nothingness. Black holes, by virtue of the fact that they suck in everything they encounter, spend their cosmic lifetimes working to scrub entropy from the universe. And as the universe nears the end of its expansion the black holes themselves evaporate, setting things back into a state of order. Unable to expand any further the universe then collapses back in on itself as a highly ordered system, ready to trigger the next Big Bang.
There are crazier theories out there, but as creation stories go it sounds relatively sane, and Sir Penrose claims he's found the evidence he needs to bolster his cyclical universe hypothesis in the cosmic microwave background. The CMB is believed to have been thrust into existence when the universe was just 300,000 years old, and as such it's treated as a kind of record of the state of the universe at that time.
The current model of the universe says any temperature variations in the CMB should be random, but Penrose claims he and a colleague have found very clear concentric circles within the CMB, suggesting regions where the radiation has much smaller temperature ranges. These, he posits, are spherical evidence of the gravitational effects of black hole collisions during the previous universe. The circles fit well in his theory, and not so well in the standard inflationary theory.
Of course, it's not all that simple and Penrose has by no means shattered the foundation of modern physics. Not yet, anyhow. Peers will read his paper critically, and he still has some loose ends to tie up and some assumptions to prove. But it's fun to try and wrap one's head around it all. And if you'd care to give that a try, you can get a PDF of Penrose's paper here.
The more we learn, the more humble our human experience becomes! This is a beautiful theory and I am so excited to see it further explored. What a wonderful time to be alive.
Jeeze finally scientists figured this out?
Of course energy can not be created nor destroyed--just altered and so what goes down the black holes or a singularity like the big bang has to go somewhere--probably into other universes. So it goes on and on and on forever like the energizer bunny!
That's my 'Energizer Bunny Universal Theory'.
Bet you can't disprove it!
There is no end and no beginning to space. It's infinite in every direction. Time isn't. Time begins in each universe separately.
So if matter is sucked into a black hole (a singularity) then it reappears as a 'rapidly expanding BIG BANG' in another universe it creates. Ad ininitum.
The dark matter we can't see? It's all those parallel universes exhibiting some forces across the universe barriers.
The best analogy I can give you is the old physics teaching tool which has 5 pin balls on a string.
If you life up the last pinball and raise it, then drop it and allow it to hit the 4 other balls--a pinball on the opposite side bounces up an equal amount as the energy is transferred to the last ball (conservation of energy experimental toy).
Black holes are like this. What you drop down the tubes into a singularity it has to come out somewhere an equal amount. In the new space time in the new universe it creates it appears as a 'BIG BANG' event and life goes on, and on, and on.
"The Wheel of Time turns, and ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the third age by some, an Age yet to come, an age long pass, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.". -Robert Jordan
I've always secretly had this idea. It makes me feel like Humanity is all but one of the trillions sentient beings to ever exist in the universe through-out the timeline of existence itself.
This has been my theory on black holes and new universes for a long time, so i definately share your entusiam! The only part that i would kinda disagree with is the time aspect. From the relative viewpoint of the matter that is sucked into a black hole and creates the new universe; the time never stopped or had to start again. From the vaccum universes' viewpoint, perhaps it was a universe like our own that was once full, but was bled dry by back holes.... or maybe it never had mass-which would certinaly give it the appearance of not being a particular place in spacetime, but as part of a larger multiverse must have been there as there is no beginning or end, but more importantly in which every scenario is encapsulated.
it certainly is a lot of fun to ponder on to say the least.
And I thought everyone was freaking out about multiple and/or parallel universes.
please people... stop throwing the word theory around and mistaking it to mean scientific theory.
@novacon: always has to be one turd in the urinal. you're not that elegant.
You're close. Keep going and you'll get it yet.
I'll give you a hint: the Big Bang "preceding" this universe is the very same Big Bang as the one "following" it.
Yet another origin "theory" without one microliter of empirical evidence. I'll stick to real science, thanks.
First off, the idea that black holes are leaking into other universes and creating big bangs across the multiverse is a little absurd. Black holes are consistently swallowing matter and energy, so if this was true (and if it is, then we would have to assume that the big bang that created our universe was the result of a black hole in another) then matter would be streaming constantly into our universe, and that just isn't true. Well, it kind of isn't... I do remember hearing sometime ago about black holes counterparts, white holes, which spew out energy instead of devouring. Regardless, I think black holes are simply massive compactors, pulling stuff in and pressing it together, hence the singularity concept; An infinite amount of energy and matter squeezed into a minuscule space, and infinite means infinite, so allll the stuff that a black hole takes in could be contained without actually having to come out somewhere else. In black holes, the rules of physics, including the conservation of energy, are rendered void or at least altered.
I don't necessarily believe my own idea here, but I think maybe once all the stars have died and the only things left active in the universe are black holes, they will feed until there is nothing left to feed on except each other. And once they have all been combined into one ultra-massive black hole, after some time it would create a fresh new big bang.
Oh, and onihikage, don't be naive. It was thoroughly believed that the world was flat until somebody, without a microliter of empirical evidence, sailed over the edge. Furthermore, "real science" has so far failed to explain how the big bang theory, amidst all that chaos, provided the universe with a good spread of matter throughout space.
Oops, forgot to mention... if a black hole in another universe caused the big bang in ours, and a black hole in yet another universe created the big bang in that one and so on and so on, then where did the first black hole and big bang come from? Hmmm
"Oh, and onihikage, don't be naive. It was thoroughly believed that the world was flat until somebody, without a microliter of empirical evidence, sailed over the edge. Furthermore, "real science" has so far failed to explain how the big bang theory, amidst all that chaos, provided the universe with a good spread of matter throughout space."
First of all, when I said "origin theory" I was referring to the article's version of the repeating big bang, not necessarily the big bang theory itself (which actually is based on some empirical evidence, though not all of that evidence fits it).
The idea that folks in Columbus' time thought the Earth was flat is a common misconception - even Aristotle accepted the Earth was spherical over 2,000 years ago. Columbus had a lot more than a microliter of empirical evidence, and he wasn't even the first expedition to the New World, just the first backed by Spain.
You shouldn't call someone naïve when you yourself are misinformed.
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason "real science has failed to explain how the big bang theory [...] provided the universe with a good spread of matter throughout space" is because the big bang theory is simply the wrong explanation for the First Cause of the universe? Just because science can only incorporate natural information does not mean supernatural conclusions are unscientific. It just means those supernatural conclusions cannot themselves be studied through empirical experimentation.
Remember Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation that best fits all the evidence is most likely the correct one. The Big Bang Theory has problems with critical areas of it, so instead of making the theory more complex to fit the evidence, reexamine the evidence in light of another simple theory.
While you may argue coming to a supernatural conclusion is "intellectual suicide" as some have stated, in reality excluding the supernatural is unscientific. Science follows the path that best explains the evidence, and in cases such as the origin of the universe, where all we have to go on are basic empirically-founded laws of physics, we either have to concoct some scenario where normal laws of physics don't apply and call it the big bang theory, or we...concoct a scenario where normal laws of physics don't apply and call it special creation.
The only difference between these is that the implications of one theory liberate us from any restrictions except those we place on ourselves and others, while another could have restrictions placed on us by a force we ourselves have no control over. That's the heart of the problem, it's not about science. As long as there are people, some will refuse to believe their actions are accountable to a supernatural being, and some will refuse to believe the natural world is all there is to the universe.
As for your second comment, that's one of the reasons Occam's razor cuts this theory down, because it does not explain the First Cause, it just obscures it behind a mountain of theory.
to anyone who believes in the theory that black holes somehow transport energy and matter into different universes or form new universes:
the one way scientist find black holes is because they shoot out jet streams of radiation. Also, if you want to make the argument including that conservation of energy... the event horizon of a black hole expands when it obtains more mass from sucking in more matter.
Mr. Penrose's theory is quite sound but i have yet to read the whole pdf file.
I'm a bit befuddled on how this is new. I remember many years ago that the Big Bang was theorized to be repeating. If I recall, something about how space is expanding led scientists to revise that and assume that the Universe would never collapse.
@bobthedog, nothing escapes the black hole. The jets you mentioned are caused by energy released by matter that has not yet been swallowed up. As an analogy, if a monster was about to eat you and you screamed in terror, someone might hear you ... but only before you become lunch, not after!
@dcspacebound420, not so absurd! A black hole could ingest matter over billions of years yet in the new universe due to time dilation, that may only be the first few seconds of that universe's big bang.
@gizmowiz, I think there is an idea that energy can be created and destroyed easily as long as the balance is maintained. In other words, a universe could start with nothing and create an electron and positron spontaneously (conservation of energy). That is the concept of 'something from nothing' that is hard get a handle on.
So what about 80% of the mass of the known universe is dark matter and science can't figure out WHERE it is or observe it?
Cannot that be matter sucked into black holes and 'parallel' within our own universe but exhibiting some gravitational attraction between the two?
You can't ignore the dark matter. It's perplexed science for generations now. And it's everywhere not at singularity point. So no theory can explain everything it's just a game to try and do so!!
I suspect there are multiple parallel universes. In fact, an infinite number of them. Most scientists do too.
It's possible that the dark matter may somehow change into REAL matter in our universe someday after all the mass is sucked into black holes.
Even if the universe isn't infinite for sure there are an infinite number of theories!
Seeing as this has turned into a chucklehead fest I'll weigh in.
Infininite doesn't mean all it just means unending. The set "Whole Numbers" is infinite, so is the set "Fractional Numbers" but set "Whole Numbers" doesn't include all of set "Fractional Numbers".
Check out a book called 1,2,3... Infinity an easily approached introduction to number theory.
A guy by the name of Gary Zukov wrote some really good books on physics, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Not so much on metaphysics. They are also worth checking out.
The big daddy of them all of course is Stephen Hawkings' robot chair. It has written several books about dark matter/ black hole theories.
Now here's a question. If you were in a black hole would you know it?
The First Cause Argument - St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the author of this argument.
Here is the original version:
"In the world that we sense, we find that efficient causes come in series. We do not, and cannot, find that something is its own efficient cause — for, if something were its own efficient cause, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. But the series of efficient causes cannot possibly go back to infinity. In all such series of causes, a first thing causes one or more intermediaries, and the intermediaries cause the last thing; when a cause is taken out of this series, so is its effect. Therefore, if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes. If the series of efficient causes went back to infinity, however, there would be no first efficient cause and, hence, no last or intermediary causes. But there obviously are such causes. We must therefore posit a first efficient cause, which everyone understands to be God." (Aquinas's "Five Ways", translated by Ronald Rubin)
Now, there are two VERY important aspects left out of the original version (for the arguments intended purpose).
#1 Nothing can be its own cause. In order for something to be a cause of anything, it must already exist. So, if something were to be its own cause, it would have to exist before it exists. Ahhh yes, contradiction. His OWN conclusion... is "not that God is self-caused, but rather that God is uncaused." A common question then - perhaps there can be instantaneous causation. If there is no time between a cause and effect, then a self-caused entity would not have to exist before it causes itself to exist. Aquinas's conclusion does not follow unless one rules out instantaneous causation. In which case, God would not be needed for instantaneous causation of the universe.
#2 Aquinas attempts to show that the chain of causation must have had a beginning. First pointing out if any link in the chain of causation is missing, then everything coming after the link will also be missing. If the first cause is missing from the chain, then so will the second, and so on... He claims if the chain of causation extends back to infinity, then there is no first cause — and so there would be no second, and so on. This means that what is going on right now — would also not exist, which is absurd. So obviously the chain of causation cannot extend back to infinity. There must have been a beginning.
This argument is soooo bad it's surprising ANYONE ever fell for it let alone uses it today. Aquinas is simply confusing (1) the existence of a cause that he calls "the first cause" with (2) its property of being first.
What we might label the "first" cause cannot be missing from the chain, otherwise the "second" cause would also be missing, and so on... That is true. But it does not follow that this event that we're calling "the first cause" cannot have a predecessor. If the chain of causation is infinite, then there is no first cause, but no link in the chain will be missing.
Aquinas fails to show that the chain of causation must have had a beginning. The result being the entire argument falls apart.
Let’s suppose though that there was a beginning. It would not follow that there MUST be a God. There are added problems with Aquinas's argument.
#1 The first cause does not have to be a conscious being, much less one with all of the unusual properties commonly ascribed to God.
#2 Aquinas's argument does not establish that the first cause is still in existence, or that there was only one first cause.
#3 It is no longer so certain that everything that occurs in the world around us must have a cause. Quantum mechanics has convinced most physicists that uncaused events can occur.
The first cause argument should not be taken seriously.
From what I understand about the universe is that it keeps expanding forever. It will never colapse on itself.
"Oops, forgot to mention... if a black hole in another universe caused the big bang in ours, and a black hole in yet another universe created the big bang in that one and so on and so on, then where did the first black hole and big bang come from? Hmmm"
If you draw a clock face in a parking lot, then stand on the number "3" and look to your left to see "4", look to your right and see "2"...
You might say, "well, 2 comes before 3, and 4 comes after it."
And I might ask, "where did the first number come from?"
You'd walk around in a circle tracing the face of the clock and you'd never know where the "first" number was since there would always be one "before" it.
Penrose gave a series of talks a few years ago. He touched on the idea that entropy fits in intimately with Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. You can search Google for "Roger Penrose: Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" to find those videos. I found those lectures to be captivating and I highly recommend them. (I think I'll watch them again tonight.)
The lectures are a fascinating look at what he feels is wrong with the "tried and true" Physics of the past century -- especially Quantum Mechanics. So, it's no surprise that those circles he discovered in the CMB do not fit in with the standard inflationary theory.
Although Roger Penrose isn't in the public mind as an Einstein or a Hawking, (with whom he shares much work involving Black Holes), he is most definitely a genius of at least that caliber. It's refreshing to see new ideas coming out of Physics that don't presuppose strings.
@B.V. & dcspacebound420
At first I had agreed with dcspacebound420 when he said that this theory is questionable because it can go back forever and ever with a series of big bangs, because dcspacebound's system of big-bangs was going in a straight line. Then B.V. used a clock analogy saying that the first big bang can never be determined because there will always be one "before" it, because his system was going in a circle. My question is whether infinity, meaning "unending" instead of "all", would go in a circle or go on forever in a straight line. because if it went in a circle, would not infinity repeat itself? Because--going back to the clock analogy--if you started at 12 and kept turning right, you'd eventually end up at 12 again.
Why the question "If you were in a black hole would you know it?"
"Cannot that be matter sucked into black holes and 'parallel' within our own universe but exhibiting some gravitational attraction between the two?"
I'm totally lost with that comment. Please explain! :)
Aight Aight...Any real physicist out there commenting???
I feel the whole concept about blackholes is wrong. In a Black hole the space itself is so twisted that the time stops. Everything that comes near the black hole is spun so hard that the material breaks down to particles and sub particles, then the particles escapes the black hole in jet streams. Black hole which is just a "whirlpool in ocean".
Have a heard that black holes have jet streams? If the black holes were actually sucking things in and not throwing nothing out, should't it have only on jet stream?
Amagine, I am standing on Top of our galaxy, let's call it north and the opposite side of THAT SIDE galaxy is south. Whould I get sucked it on North or south or both sides? Why
Its pretty refreshing to hear that what I concluded years ago may be scientific fact. The way I see it, the universe expands until eventually, black holes begin devouring each other. When everything has collapsed into one infinitesimal speck, it then expands into the next universe. I know that is putting it in pretty basic terms, but I think it makes perfect sense.
If the universe is actually cyclical, it'd be repeating forever and ever, right? Are there an "infinite" number of possibilities for the arrangement of the universe? Or is it finite? Is it possible that with a oscillating universe, eventually some possibilities would repeat? Like, would this particular universe that we're in right now ever be reconstructed by pure chance? Or is the probability of that so small as to be almost 0?
gahhh headache :P
good news,there's Fashionable.
╭⌒╭⌒ ★ ╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒
☆ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒
our websit: ★∴ ☆
☆ ( http://www.shoppinglove.org )
accept paypal╭⌒╮⌒╮★∵╭⌒ ★∴ ☆
｜田｜田田│ ☆Free Shipping ★
To put this into perspective: Black holes swallow everything into themselves compacting everything into a singularity. After the black hole can no longer hold any more, it releases all the stored matter into a new dimension, resulting in a big bang, and the formation of a new universe.
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before.".. Paul Dirac
=== http://www.supershops.org ===
=== http://www.supershops.org ===
=== http://www.supershops.org ===
=== http://www.supershops.org ===
maybe you can find answers here:
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
◢◤ ◥◣ ◢◤ ◥◣
◤ ◥◣ ◢◤ █
▎ ◢█◣ ◥◣◢◤ ◢█ █
◣◢◤ ◥◣ ◢◣◥◣◢◤
◥██◤ ◢ ◥██◤
█ ● ● █
█ 〃 ▄ 〃 █
◥◣ ╚╩╝ ◢◤
This idea is not knew. In fact, that's exactly what Einstein's theory predicts when matter generation from vacuum energy causes vacuum expansion.
Our Darwinian Universe: