|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> 1) Spacetime inside an event horizon is pretty weird, and the spacetime
> we currently reside in isn't (relatively speaking, at least).
It's only weird if the event horizon is small. A galaxy-sized black hole,
you could fall into and not notice. And it's not like you can get outside
the event horizon of the universe.
> 2) All spacetime geodesics inside an even horizon point towards the
> singularity. (Ok, in a rotating black hole it's more complicated than
> that, but in principle I suppose it's the same.) We are not moving towards
> a singularity; we are expanding, hence moving *away* from any possible
> "central point" of the Universe. That kind of contradicts the idea.
Unless there'a big crunch? :-)
> Of course I am no physicist, and I have zero knowledge of the GR
> equations, so I could be completely off track with this. My point is,
> however, that I just don't understand how that hypothesis could be even
> worthy of consideration.
I think it was more popular before people found dark energy and thought we
were heading for a "big crunch" or something?
>> But I suspect it's the giant FTL "inflation" or some other wonkiness of
>> pre-first-microsecond space-time that means the "singularity" wasn't all
>> that singular.
>
> I have read somewhere that it's considered that even if the entire
> Universe was concentrated in a singularity at the beginning, it's hard
> to say anything about its nature because anything prior to the first
> unit of planck time did not obey any current laws of nature (in other
> words, laws of nature break up when we go back in time more than one
> planck time unit after it all started).
Basically, yes. Plank time and plank length are the quantums of quantum
mechanics, so there *isn't* anything smaller than that. It's like asking for
half a bit of information.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |