Are we inside a black hole?, Schwarzschild radius of universe

Visible Universe has an estimated mass of: about 3 x 10^53 kg
The estimated size of the visible universe: about 1/4 x 10^10 light years

So when you calculate the Schwarzschild radius using this, you get:
4.69 x 10^13 light years.

=> the visible universe is actually about 1000 x SMALLER than this Schwarzschild radius.

So doesn't that mean that we are inside a black hole???

This is the reference I found on this:
________________________________
Quantum black hole inflation
M.B.Altaie
Dept. of Physics, Yarmouk University, 21163 Irbid-Jordan
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0105/0105024.pdf

"the universe may have been born as a black hole and is still is. This
idea is not new, and there are a number of investigations that support
it; for example it was already shown long ago by Oppenheimer and
Snyder [24] that the inside of the Schwartzchild solution could be a
Friedmann universe. Moreover it was shown by Pathria [25] that our
present universe may be described as an internal Schwartzchid solution
if it has the critical energy density. More recent investigations [26]
based on the assumption of the existance of a limiting curvature have
shown that the inside of a Schwartzchild black hole can be attached to
a de Sitter universe at some space-like junction which is taken to
represent a short transition layer. Other senarios in which the
universe emerges from the interior of a black hole are also
proposed[27-33]."

Hi korosten,

I think this is "close". We are inside a "solution" for our Universe. We probably do not have all the data yet to define just exactly what we are. Part of this "solution" is the WIMAP Data which indicates that we are in a Toroidally multiply connected Poincaré Dodecahedral Space (not all that conceptually different from an "Asteroids" computer game, if you can remember back that far).
A cosmic hall of mirrors: PhysicsWeb Sept 2005
Angular power spectrum

Within this "space" there are probably "many" Rindler Foliations within which we sit in one of them...
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime


Reflections on Relativity
Of course that is from one perspective there is the next level of abstraction that is the "Holographic Universe" check out this important extension...
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
... which leads to ...
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
So rather than a de Sitter Space, I submit we are probably in an anti-de Sitter Space... a stringy "fuzzball" and the "transition layer" is harmonic or resonant on the reciprocal space.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 5 2006, 06:20 AM

My personal opinion:

I think the laws of relativity in regards to distance resolve into the the apparent effect of being in a blackhole bubble of sorts.

Hi ubavontuba, korosten et al,

I think that is what I said... only "Black Hole" is too simple a solution to solve this problem. The "Black Hole" is an intellectual abstraction and probably does not entirely describe "real Black Holes" or should I call them "Grey Holes".

Another recent article that explains what I am on about is this one from New Scientist..
Black Hole Paradox, The elephant and the event horizon, 26 October 2006. You can get the entire article from there but some of it I will put here...

Now I admit this is not my "hole" story but it is very close to it. A careful reading of this article will provide the link to see our Universe as only one tiny "grain" on an endless beach... a Holographic Universe. Now all the approaches that I have seen are "particle interpretations"... I lean toward a fully matter wave approach to Universe seeing everything as their waves rather than as "little disconnected billiard balls bouncing inside boxes". Particle theories of the Universe are "lame" because they convert complex space descriptions into scalar descriptions through inner product projection, reducing the dimensionality of our theories to just 4 dimensions. Actually the overall Universe is at least 10 dimensional but endlessly embedded in other Universes as far as we know. Our Universe is more like that Hologram with "strings" on the lower dimensional surface that connects through an inverse dual to our Universe which is harmonic and resonant along the boundary... or at least that is what we see from our side. Unfortunately the penalty for this "view" is a very complicated initial picture based on Fourier Theory.

In the end though it is a "slightly" more involved "machine" than this one used for processing early pictures from space...
Optical Fourier Transforn
Here we see a very simple optical system... one of the simplest... capable of converting real images into Fourier pane information... holograms or strings (your choice). Today these complex plane manipulations are done with computers but a very natural "optical" system has its origins in Maldacena's theory except this device is from the 1960's. This is the idea behind all the modern concepts except they are all trying to describe using particles what occurs quietly and naturally through Fourier Processing by Mother Nature. Our Universe actually works in a couple of higher dimensions with de Broglie Matter Waves and this leads to some quite startling conclusions. Looking Glass Universes. Mathematically complex but the Universe does this "naturally" without the aid of a single computer.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Nov 5 2006, 08:32 AM

Thanks for the answers!

Is it possible to express these ideas in simpler terms (I do have a PhD in computer science and did a lot of sutff on probabilities and such, but not in physics :-)

Maybe the term black hole is over-used and we need to introduce new terms to describe what we mean:

What would you call an object (of any shape or form!) that has an escape velocity> c, so an object that is simply defined by its schwarzschild radius, nothing more (so light cannot escape, and you can't look inside).

The question then is re our (visible) universe:

It appears that the mass of this visible universe is well inside that boundary.

So the logical conclusion would be to me is that light cannot get out of the visible universe (even if the actual universe is bigger),
and that an outside observer would not be able to see inside (since light could not escape).

Thanks,
Chantal

Hi, Chantal..

By mainstream theories each the black hole should have an at lest two things: a event horizon and a singularity in its core. By Aether Wave theory (AWT) not one assumption is required for black hole existence. The common black holes can be considered as a neutrino stars (i.e. a sort of giant nucleon confined by gravity), where the photon surface plays a role of event horizon for light.



But the neutrinos aren't a most elementary particles of vacuum, definitely. For example the axions and gravitons can be even more fundamental. By such way, the Universe can be considered as giant graviton star, so called gravastar. When our Universe collapses, it will create a daughter Universes inside it by collision of existing vacuum in less or more spherical zones, thus forming a foamy structure of existing dark matter, which we can observe by gravitational lensing effects. We are simply living in collapsed core of giant black hole and this possibility is taken more and more seriously by mainstream science. It means the end of anti-Aether lobby in the science at the same time.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Nov 5 2006, 04:35 PM

Thanks Zephir!

That actually makes much more sense to me what I have read before.

I never understood why there "should" be a singularity in the center, it does not seem logical to me.

It also seems logical to me that we are inside a black hole (see other thread :-).

I didn't understand the "foamy structures of dark matter" part, but I will definitively read more about the AWT theory!

Thanks,
Chantal

perhaps be scientific ficction,but the black holes can be multiples holes made
wormholes that are multiple-connected,in all regions of space-time.each blackholes create tunneling one into others,that go if brachings into of infinitea
vaccum separated each one,by a energy state,with frequency ,space-time,density,with gravitational potentia does differences between the curvatures of space-time,the quantic vaccum is divided in infinites subquantic vaccuml,that define the distortions generateds in to of the gravitational fields with metric tensor and also a scalar that lead us the orientations of space-time non-local and local.
then the excitations of vaccum symmetry breaks,that does generate into of BH,infinities,each one as holograms of others,as the dimensions more major are reflected in low dimension,as in low energy,where the tachionic fields are are exotic particles that appear in this continuum space-time,as particles that appear has minor lifetime that might has.then the occur,discontinuities in the space-time,that does the space-time vary its curvatures,then appear curvatures that does the time run backward,there the time appear as absorpting the particles
before that the antiparticles.the affecting relations of causes and effects.then the BH,give us that sensations,because once causality appear broken,as in the k-mesons.and the differences of velocities observed between particles and antiparticles.that appear does the time,has other measured to the particles,occuring not reversion-space-time.then the blackholes can be speculate reflections of various blackholes one contained into of the others

But I said it so much more succinctly.

Hi ubavontuba, mott.carl, Zephir et al,

I think that is what I said...

But I said it so much more succinctly.

Quite true. The Universe is a pork chop... E = MC^2 and the devil is in the detail... The age of the "sound byte".

It is my belief that man has not come near to understanding the true nature of our Universe yet and this is simply because we insist that the entire story of Life, the Universe and Everything must be able to be printed in large type on a Tee Shirt. It gives us a warm inner glow to know that we have pruned the abstract knowledge of our Universe down to such simple formula, and the "slogans" look so deceptively "simple", that they must be right.

What if we are wrong... what if our knowledge of the Universe must considerably deepen before we glimpse even the first glimmer of understanding. The Ancients had the same idea, that the Universe consisted of only four elements and I am sure that if they had Tee Shirts they would have written on them "Earth Wind Fire Water". Everything summarized, all law, all nature, the music of the spheres and the course of the wandering stars emblazoned in epicycles across the vault of heaven. All this and man in the center... a wonderful place to be. ... Not!

I understand your sentiment but I cannot help but disagree. Anything worth knowing is "hard" to understand... It is just man's fate. It needs "earning". Once you know something really useful it simplifies everything else. I would love to say things more succinctly, and I could, but to those who want this information they would rather prefer an hour's discussion. I am jump starting Jumbo Jets here... with good reason... it is hard for most.

For instance korosten wants it simpler... Zephir has provided a pretty feel good answer and it is simpler. I can't "beat" that. If I said that the Universe works by way of tiny invisible pixies that just make things happen, that would satisfy a lot of people (not too many sane ones but nonetheless...). It was almost the answer that most of the Christian World believed 1000 years ago where the fall of a single leaf was accompanied by hosts of "angels" whose only purpose was to see that every letter of "Gods Will" was carried out... How comforting! The Laws of Physics were just not necessary to the medieval mind. Which theory do you prefer the "pixies" or the "angels"? Today about 1/3 of US Citizens believe in angels so for them they "got it made"... a true Theory of Everything! ... One theory fits all. Of course that "one theory" also has demons in it too and they are all to be found at the bottom of a bottomless pit with Satan and his minions... "Are we inside a black hole?"... Goodness... the ultimate answer!

Cheers

No, it doesn't have to have a singularity at it's core, it's just that most physical situations do lead to a singularity, because the material can't keep itself from collapsing, such as the case for an overly massive neutron star.

If you got all the stars in the galaxy and moved them into a volume of radius 50AU, you would create a black hole in the sense that the mass would not allow light to escape at all, but the average density of the space would be that of water. Of course, keeping 100 billion stars in such a small volume from colliding would be near impossible, if they were not artificially kept apart somehow, they'd collapse into one another and form a HUGE black hole. That still doesn't negate the fact you can still get an event horizon without the requirement for a singularity.

AlphaNumeric,

Thanks! Yes, that's exactly what I meant!

Now think bigger! what if you take the entire visible universe and "shove it" it inside its Schwarzschild radius?

Well, it turns out, you don't have to shove! The whole visible universe is already well inside that radius...

That'w why I was asking: are we inside a black hole :-) ? (that does not have a singularity in the center :-)

Chantal

GoodElf,

You are right of course, just because something sounds simpler doesn't make it right :-). Re AWT theory, I didn't know which theories were the common current theories in physics and which were not (I learned that in the meantime).

It just seems so many things in nature are ultimately quite easy to *understand*, at least in its concept, be it chemistry, biology etc (I studied biochemistry originally :-). Of course you need a lot of math etc to fully understand the *details* (such as chemical bonding etc), but still, the concepts are fairly easy.

So I was hoping that this would apply to the universe - or at least to parts of it, like blakc holes - as well.

For instance, I read the original paper of Einsteins theory of relativity, and he was able to get the concept accross in quite simple terms - even if the math was not *that* simple (to me :-).

Chantal

Hi korosten,

You are not alone. There are grand unifying principles behind the scenes but to arrive at "simple" distillations of all we have learned can sometimes be very fulfilling. We do seem to be inside a very large black hole. This is Olbers Paradox.
Wikipedia: Olbers' paradox
The night sky is dark and we are very much alone. This Wiki is full of interesting information. Of course much of it will be wrong and even some of the clearly stated "absurdities" are not necessarily so. For instance under the section "Myths and alternative explanations", we see a statement...

Interesting enough this cannot hold "absolutely" since the sky is literally "filled" with orbiting bodies (the Oort Cloud), that we are unable to easily see, that belongs mainly beyond the orbit of Neptune. A recent space survey observed a couple of close bye stars and counted how many times over a predetermined period of time the light from the star was eclipsed. This number was unexpectedly very very high. The number escapes me but it puts the number of the objects between here and the few next closest stars at a truly astronomical number. Many of these bodies may be the size of Pluto or even bigger. These are not the hot bodies predicted, they are obviously quite cold. Bang goes the theory that seems so patently and obviously "true". Any theory of "Dark Matter" will need to account for this material as well as some "special stuff" out there as well. This makes things more complicated but much more interesting doesn't it? Lots of accessible raw materials for mankind to harness some day soon.

Cheers and best wishes

I think you have to get back to basics on this. The Big Bang is not viable for many reasons but if you accept it and your idea, then we would be inside an expanding event horizon of a black hole, something we have not come across before since event horizons are set at the start by the mass contained therein.

Originally it all started off as a point source (?) which contained all spacetime, which then inflated at maybe 10^20 times light speed to cricket ball size, then slowed down below light speed expanding to it's current size. The edge of the spacetime, where presumably the event horizon would be is continuously expanding. This is without the input of new material. If spacetime were expanding into another medium, there would presumably be resistance at that point, as well as incoming material which would be of the highest energy as the material was accelerated to virtually light speed. Strictly speaking, the Universe is a self contained ball expanding into nothingness so is certainly similar to a black hole if not one.

Looking into the future of a continually expanding Universe, would it stop expanding when it reaches the limit of size of a possible event horizon for the mass in the Universe? If it were able to continue expanding, it would lose black hole status.