Perhaps there could be an alternative cut where Dave tortures HAL by feeding him the contents of this and similar threads. HAL ejects his own memory cores when he can't stand it any longer.
Virtual Black Holes - Do They Create The Mass of the Universe?
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
Or, just goes completely "M-5" on our buttocks...
@Dryson, here is the abstract to a paper on virtual black holes by Stephen Hawking from back in 1995:
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9510029v1 for the full paper.
Perhaps you should read this paper and comment how it relates to your hypothesis. It seems that Hawking turned out to be incorrect in stating that we might never observe the Higgs boson that is responsible for generating the mass of fundamental particles. What does that imply for the basis of his conjecture?
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9510029v1 for the full paper.
Perhaps you should read this paper and comment how it relates to your hypothesis. It seems that Hawking turned out to be incorrect in stating that we might never observe the Higgs boson that is responsible for generating the mass of fundamental particles. What does that imply for the basis of his conjecture?
Well - to be fair to Hawking - in 1995, we didn't have the equipment or technology we have now. At that time, I think he may have been a bit pessimistic about it but, I'm sure he was actually happy to be wrong about finding the Higgs (despite loosing a bet).
https://www.livescience.com/47737-stephen-hawking-higgs-boson-universe-doomsday.html
https://www.livescience.com/47737-stephen-hawking-higgs-boson-universe-doomsday.html
Its mass does seem to indicate that the vacuum might potentially be unstable, which is a tad unsettling. Hawking seems to have been more of a gambler than I had realised. His more famous bet was about information being lost in black holes (actually to do with a concept known as unitarity), which he also conceded. However, even though CERN detected a particle identified as the Higgs boson, the supersymmetric particles predicted by theory do seem to be strangely elusive.
A recent discovery by Voyager 2 is challenging the concept of space being a vacuum.
What Voyager 2 has discovered is that the farther you travel away from the Sun, Interstellar Space becomes more dense.
Could the mass of the Universe, prior to the Big Bang, have been more dense then it is now? Could the density of Pre-Big Bang particles have played into the actually Big Bang itself that as a result, Pre-Big Bang particles were forced away from energetic points creating less dense regions of space?
What Voyager 2 has discovered is that the farther you travel away from the Sun, Interstellar Space becomes more dense.
Could the mass of the Universe, prior to the Big Bang, have been more dense then it is now? Could the density of Pre-Big Bang particles have played into the actually Big Bang itself that as a result, Pre-Big Bang particles were forced away from energetic points creating less dense regions of space?
I would point out that's kind of the definition of what the Big Bang was, except you don't seem to have much idea what it was.
I don't think that's a recent discovery. Does it have any connection to your topic?
More particles per unit volume but it's still a very high vacuum.
The message to take from this is that YouTube videos often have hyperbolic clickbait headlines to attract viewers and increase revenue.
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/details.php?article_id=116
The message to take from this is that YouTube videos often have hyperbolic clickbait headlines to attract viewers and increase revenue.
Last edited:
And the farther out you go, the more of the total mass of the solar system is behind you, with more gravitational pull coming from one direction?
The talk of gravitational molecules around black holes is good sf fodder.
Some think the largest black holes started as gravitinos piling up from the early universe.
“Textures” interest me...
The talk of gravitational molecules around black holes is good sf fodder.
Some think the largest black holes started as gravitinos piling up from the early universe.
“Textures” interest me...
Last edited:
The velocity of the solar wind is usually around 400 km/s, which is much greater than the escape velocity from the solar system (42 km/s at the orbital distance of the earth). The solar wind eventually collides with the interstellar medium producing a termination shock, compression, consequent heating, and an increase in density. The associated magnetic field also carries momentum and it interacts with the galactic magnetic field, possibly releasing energy due to reconfiguration.
It's still an incredibly tenuous vacuum at less than one particle per cubic centimetre. The density of the solar wind near the earth is about 10 particles per cubic centimetre.
Another question I have is this. With Virtual Black Holes coming into and going out of existence very rapidly, they would still create a pulling effect on matter around the VBH. What happens to matter that is pulled into the VBH at very high velocities but before being destroyed the VBH vanishes? Does the matter pulled into a VBH become some type of exotic new matter? Could a VBH be the source that creates a Higgs-Boson that add mass to matter?
Does the process of adding mass to matter prior to the Big Bang take place within the VBH itself?
Another tantalizing question is this. What happens when two VBH, that are aligned perfectly to each other centers, collapse? Does a micro time rupture or dimensional rupture occur that could open up other dimensions?
Does the process of adding mass to matter prior to the Big Bang take place within the VBH itself?
Another tantalizing question is this. What happens when two VBH, that are aligned perfectly to each other centers, collapse? Does a micro time rupture or dimensional rupture occur that could open up other dimensions?
Last edited:
So this might explain the voyager 2 thing that is happening? but then maybe not -- Forbes? right-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/06/is-the-universe-actually-a-fractal/
from this article.---
it seems that when I make a fractal I am using what might be partial dimensions of things.. like not a 3 dimensional fractal or a 2 dimensional fractal but a 2.345,... something dimensional fractal --- and it is not the universe -- because the universe has a few more dimensions than that- I hope-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/06/is-the-universe-actually-a-fractal/
from this article.---
If you take a look at the structures that form in the Universe, many of the things we see on large scales appears at smaller scales, too. The dark matter halos that form around the largest bound structures we know of appear identical to the ones that form around Milky Way-sized galaxies, as well as the tiny substructure clumps that exist both around smaller galaxies and in intergalactic space itself. On the largest scales in the Universe, gravitation is the only force that matters. Under many circumstances, if you wait long enough, gravitational collapse will produce identical structures, just scaled up or down in size depending on the size of your system.
The idea that, if you zoom in far enough, you’ll eventually encounter a structure that repeats the initial pattern you saw on larger scales, is mathematically realized in the concept of a fractal. When similar patterns repeatedly emerge at smaller and smaller scales, we can analyze them mathematically and see if they have the same statistical characteristics as the larger structures; if they do, it’s fractal-like in nature. So, is the Universe itself a fractal?
The idea that, if you zoom in far enough, you’ll eventually encounter a structure that repeats the initial pattern you saw on larger scales, is mathematically realized in the concept of a fractal. When similar patterns repeatedly emerge at smaller and smaller scales, we can analyze them mathematically and see if they have the same statistical characteristics as the larger structures; if they do, it’s fractal-like in nature. So, is the Universe itself a fractal?
it seems that when I make a fractal I am using what might be partial dimensions of things.. like not a 3 dimensional fractal or a 2 dimensional fractal but a 2.345,... something dimensional fractal --- and it is not the universe -- because the universe has a few more dimensions than that- I hope-
It's an interesting article but, since I've never loved math for math's sake...?
I, personally, won't be one bit surprised to find that there is no graviton and that gravity is just the contraction of space-time due to the presence of matter (Higgs Boson). No carrier may explain why gravity seems to be so weak compared to the rest of the fundamental forces.
That opens the question of whether Dark Energy is just space-time behaving as it should without anything to stop or slow it's expansion...
I, personally, won't be one bit surprised to find that there is no graviton and that gravity is just the contraction of space-time due to the presence of matter (Higgs Boson). No carrier may explain why gravity seems to be so weak compared to the rest of the fundamental forces.
That opens the question of whether Dark Energy is just space-time behaving as it should without anything to stop or slow it's expansion...
Mathematics is the only tool that we have to model and predict the Cosmos. Its basis is symbol manipulation according to a set of rules, is limited by inherent contradictions that cannot be avoided, and contains statements whose truth is not capable of resolution. I'm a Nominalist rather than a Platonic Realist, as if you couldn't tell.
Oops... Looks like Dryson got kicked out...
Not sure if it's permanent.
Not sure if it's permanent.
Black holed?
Evidence suggests it's temporary.
But would a temporary "black-holing" effect explain the periodic dimming of KIC 8462852?
But would a temporary "black-holing" effect explain the periodic dimming of KIC 8462852?
Similar threads
