Imagine that the universe is the surface of a balloon. The balloon is of course expanding and all objects are moving away from one another. Everything we know in our 3-D realm is embedded within the surface. Therefore, each objects gravitational potential is determined by how deep that object is embedded into the surface. A larger mass would naturally push down deeper into the surface causing other objects to move towards the center of that impression.
A black hole, an object so small and dense, would sort of puncture a hole in the surface causing the surface properties to collapse. Hence, it is the quantum nature of the surface of the balloon and the quantum nature of the object under these special circumstances which collapses these properties. Within that quantum arena, all properties of the surface of the balloon and the mass of the object become unified. A sort of primordial oneness, if you will.
There is a danger in taking the surface of the balloon analogy too far. You aren’t allowed to “pop” the universe as the case may be… spacetime is not made out of finitely elastic material. Furthermore, a blackhole is a fine solution to the Einstein Equations meaning that there can be no catastrophic “collapse”.
The universe doesn’t “pop” under these conditions, it simply continues to expand or contract, dependant on the density of matter in the universe.
How does spacetime expand if not comprised of so-called “elastic” material? Also, please remember that the balloon is an analogy.
We don’t know what’s going at the singularity of a black hole. I;m only suggesting that the properties of the matter and spacetime breakdown or collapse and then unify.
At the time of the Big Bang, wasn’t all known matter in the form of freeflowing neutrons and protons in the universe contained within a very hot, dense singularity ? Wasn’t it later on that the known forces separated? Basically, everything was in a unified state. Why wouldn’t the matter contained in a black hole also be in a unified state similar to that of the pre-Big Bang?
The balloon analogy implies an inward pressure, that would increase as the surface volume grew, and the material stretched. Perhaps you mean gravity to be that inward pressure, and simply stop the analogy short of elasticity.
But since the universe is accelerating outward, doesn’t this stretch the analogy too far? (pardon the pun)
It is only the 2-D surface area of the balloon which is used as an analogy. There is nothing of relevance to talk about inside of the balloon nor the outside. All of the known universe exists within the surface area.
Gravity is simply the embedding of matter within the surface area of the balloon, similar to the rubber sheet analogy.
Another way to look at the embedding of matter within a 3-D surface area is this; take a sealed cylinder of liquid under pressure. If you release a bubble of air into the liquid, it will take on a shape representative to the pressure inside the cylinder. As you increase or decrease the pressure, the bubble will decrease and increase in size.
Now instead, think of the increasing and decreasing pressure of the liquid representative to the mass of the object. The object would displace spacetime similar to the bubble or air displacing the liquid. The larger the mass, the more spacetime is displaced, the more spacetime displaced, the higher the gravitational potential of the object. In this way, the displacement of spacetime by the object would have the effect of curvature. Essentially, it is this displacement of spacetime from the presence of mass which causes gravity.
I don’t wish to pursue a crackpot theory, but is there anything drastically wrong with this model?
I read a paper once online (i am sorry but I have long ago lost the link) that carries a similar idea a bit further. It posits generations of “universes” that actually evolve into more complex universes. the black hole puncture analogy is instead taken further than a “hole” and instead would be like taking that rubber balloon skin and creating a new bubble in sheet. Kind of like when you take remnants of a burst balloon and by sucking on a portion of it you can create small bubbles to pop. Some of these bubbles would become whole new universes possibly with completly different physics from its parent universe. The theory goes on to describe how each new bubble could in turn hatch their own new bubbles(universes). I will try to get back with a link if I can because I am really simplifying what was a well written and thought out explanation of quantuum physics that lead to this theory…
