Singularity

[RobM]

So it occurred to me today that the universe could actually be pulled towards a singularity. Something closer to the singularity than us would accelerate and therefore to us appear to be getting further away. Something further away from the singularity than us would be not accelerating as much as us and therefore also appear to be getting further away. Both would appear to us that space is expanding due to inflation but the reality would be completely the opposite. I keep saying 'as us' but I mean dependent to the observer. Also there is a point towards the big bang where we cannot look further back due to this expansion being faster than light can travel - so therefore we currently have a 'horizon'. However this could also be explained as anything in the singularity's event horizon already where light cannot escape for us to see. So basically we see *exactly* what we observe now but the universe is actually not expanding at all. This would completely negate a big bang or big inflation. I googled this but couldn't find anything - does anybody have any links or thoughts? It's actually bugging me lol This would also mean that theoretically our observable universe is already in a black hole and past the point of escape and therefore there are things outside the event horizon that will never end. This could point to a timeless endless universe without a big bang or big inflation. I'm sure the maths doesn't hold up or there is a fundamental flaw that is so stupid people haven't even bothered to think about it - please let me know if so.

 

[dee]

we'll never know. Isnt it generally considered that a singularity is hidden behind its own event horizon so cant be observed ?

Depends from where your looking.

 

[RobM]

Yeah but I've not heard a theory that we're actively heading towards a universal singularity. I found a few mentions of 'what if the universe is inside a black hole' kind of thing but none of the ideas I have were ever mentioned.
Big Bang(inflation) results in exactly what we see now. However *I think* the complete opposite (no big bang/inflation) and heading towards a universal singularity would also result in exactly what we see now. However the former is a theory commonly mentioned but the latter is never mentioned as far as I can find. That suggests to me that my logic is massively flawed and has been discarded by better minds than mine - I just can't find the flaw in my thought.
Also I realize my post sounds like a silly rant but I'm not dwelling on this - nor is my life changing Just something that interests me. I actually believe the universe is one of many simulations (and therefore not real) but that, like this thought, makes no difference to life. I would just like someone to say 'your reasoning is flawed because of x' and I'll be a happier bunny.

 

[Edwin]

That's definitely an intriguing theory. But if the universe were being pulled towards a singularity, I assume the singularity would occupy (or not occupy - it's pretty hard to imagine) a specific point in space. But the universe isn't itself a point, it's a massive 3+ dimensional thing. So wouldn't the bits of the Universe off to the sides of the singularity in your scenario end up being pulled in towards it at an angle to how we are being pulled into it. And wouldn't that then show up in things like the red shift, lateral motion of galaxies etc?

It's also worth bearing in mind that the singularity at the big bang is "unknowable" under present physics. But that's not the same as saying that things would have to travel faster than light beyond it. They could have to be made of cheddar (I'm joking to make a point, namely that "unknowable" means just that i.e. impossible to determine). So if stuff beyond the singularity were behaving "differently" to how one might speculate they are, that would sabotage any theory relying on it behaving a different way.

I also agree that the simulation theory seems plausible, if only because it's no more crazy than the real universe. It's just different.

 

[dee]

But then theres probably a white hole on the other side of any singularity anyway which will probably also have the same observable (although inverted) viewpoint. It will make your head explode.

Superstring theory is still in its infancy but they think might take a lot of relativaty shortcomings into account.

I think we're all in one massive fridge compressor...contraction and expansion within a system pipe of infinite diameter in a giant mobius loop.

 

[Edwin]

BTW, here's an article that seemed to offer a reasoned debunking of the "Universe inside a black hole" notion
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/09/04/are-we-living-in-a-black-hole/

I'm sure there are a hundred other theories out there that are supported by at least some form of reasoning. It's such a tough subject and it looks like we may not even be close to finding a right answer.

 

[Edwin]

Perhaps we're all just part of the screensaver running on some cosmic version of a PC. Sooner or later, the owner will come and wriggle the mouse and we'll all be gone.

 

[dee]

Perhaps we're all just part of the screensaver running on some cosmic version of a PC. Sooner or later, the owner will come and wriggle the mouse and we'll all be gone.

I'm sure thats true in one of the branches

 

[dee]

Okay... you've had me trying to get my head around what your saying. How does redshift come into play with your possible model ? Or have I misunderstood what your saying?

 

[RobM]

I saw that article earlier Edwin - the line 'Our universe isn’t collapsing in on itself, it’s expanding at an ever increasing rate' is the crux of the whole idea in that article and is not explained. Yes the singularity would be a point in space. The theory of inflation is to imagine three points on a balloon close together. As the balloon is blown up all points move away from each other. However what I am suggesting is that if all points were heading towards a singularity the one closest would accelerate faster and from that point of view the other 2 would appear to be moving away - exactly as if inflating the balloon but really with no inflation occurring. Of course they would be slowly moving towards the singularity but each other point would appear to be moving away even though all 3 were ultimately headed to the same singularity. Dee everything would still have the same redshift due to distance from each other and speed of light. However you may be on the right lines - I need to study more on light wavelength.

On a simulation note I can only go by my experience as a programmer both in code and 3d gaming and the cheating used to divert resources whilst maintaining an illusion of structure. Assuming noninfinite processing power there would come a point where the simulation would have to end once a goal had been reached. If I created the universe and the goal of the simulation was to see how anything could ever achieve travel in it I would spend processing power on things that can easily be observed on a daily basis and end once the load became too high. For distant galaxies, stars, etc I would use a lightmap/skybox - ie a static image that doesn't bear close scrutiny - that way you could show trillions of galaxies and planets without having to simulate them atomically. Once the simulation was unable to keep up I would have it end automatically. The cool thing about that is the people in the simulation would never know there had been one I would also run billions of universes each with differing startup parameters - speed of light, pi, amount of dimensions etc. For this reason I don't think mankind will ever explore space physically or develop to an ability beyond that of being able to create simulations of a universe. Unless of course we are the first generation to do it but probability theory makes that unlikely although not impossible.

 

[RobM]

Never mind I just realised why it's not the case. If an equilateral triangle is used with 1 point representing a singularity and the other 2 points representing galaxies moving towards it at the same acceleration they would actually move closer to each other as their distance from the singularity decreased regardless of their increasing acceleration. We know this is not the case due to redshift of light from galaxy to galaxy. I'm such an idiot for missing the obvious. Ah well thanks guys for the input anyway

 

[dee]

We know this is not the case due to redshift of light from galaxy to galaxy

Yep. Unless instead of course instead of the bodies moving apart , their masses have been slowly increasing whilst staying stationary. This would also give the same observable redshift effect and make my head explode even more quickly.

 

[dee]

@RobM

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/06/the-universe-is-shrinking-this-theory.html#.WO3q_DtGL6A

 

[RobM]

An interesting theory that I saw before - however this, like many theories, can never be proven/disproven.

 

[scottmccloud]

Really interesting article on 'living in a simulation' type theories on the Mysterious Universe website:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/...se-we-may-be-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

 

[RobM]

Indeed. I had one but the wheels fell off.

 

[dee]

Indeed. I had one but the wheels fell off.

I got one of those new ones without wheels. Much better.

 

[RobM]

Lol the vietnamese spam before my previous comment has been removed - I'm not just a random nutter.