Can Black Holes Create Baby Universes?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of black holes potentially creating baby universes, referencing Paul Davies' ideas about singularities where time ceases to exist. It highlights that black holes form from the gravitational collapse of stars, resulting in extreme gravitational forces that disrupt spacetime. The conversation raises questions about the reconciliation of general relativity and quantum theory, noting that the true nature of singularities remains unknown. It also considers the implications of the universe's expansion on black hole formation and whether singularities can exist in a universe that may never allow them to be reached. Ultimately, the debate reflects ongoing uncertainties in understanding black holes and their role in the cosmos.
math_04
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
This may strike some people as really weird but after reading the book, God and the New Physics by Paul Davies, I came across a paragraph where he explains what happens at the singularity of a black hole. At the singularity, there is no concept of time apparently. So it is impossible to leave a black hole otherwise you would leave before you went in. This is what Paul Davies discussed. Everything is infinite and basically, you would be at time=0, in other words the point where the universe has just begun. For me, this seems like concrete proof of baby universes forming.

Black holes are formed from the gravitational collapse within a star after it has burned out all its nuclear energy. So all that mass collapses and all that mass squeezed down creates incredible gravitational forces. The gravity is so strong that it tears apart space time. This is all from what I have read here and there.

So at that point of singularity, a baby universe forms but obviously is closed away from us due to the laws of physics (infinite density, at time= 0 etc etc). This has probably been mentioned many times but I don't know why it has not been accepted. Any reasons why?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The description of what happens inside a black hole is based on the assumption that general relativity is exact, while quantum theory has no role. The problem with this is that quantum theory is here and trying to reconcile it with G.R. inside a black hole can't be done. The reality is that no one knows what really happens inside a black hole.
 
Basically, once you have a singularity, you can make up any physics you like, such as white holes, new universes, time travel, etc, etc. I have spent a lot of time in this forum and the Relativity forum trying to explain why singularities do not form, but it feels like telling a bunch of kids that Santa Claus does not exist.
 
From the point of view of an observer who will forever remain outside the black hole, anything which falls in will take an infinite time to reach the horizon, and will therefore never reach the singularity (which is beyond the horizon).

That said, there might not be an observer who is capable of remaining forever outside the black hole. If the universe is going to recollapse into a big crunch, one could say that all black holes will eventually coalesce, and everything will, at some time in its history, pass inside. In that case everything reaches the singularity in finite time, and the singularity is simply the end of time; the last moment of the universe.

On the other hand, the universe may be undergoing accelerated expansion. It might be so that a black hole can never properly form, because everything which seemed destined to cross the horizon will actually reappear at some future date, being drawn back by the expansion of space. This would imply that no horizon existed at any stage at all. Or this might be true for some apparent black holes, but not all of them, depending on the details of the accelerated expansion. There might then be apparent black holes, without an actual singularity, and real black holes, with a singularity which cannot be reached (from the point of view of an outside observer) in finite time.
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...
Back
Top