What if everything we see is actually inside a black hole so massive that the distance between it's singularity/surface and it's event horizon is much larger than the observable universe?

Let's say it's mass was a trillion trillion times the mass of the observable universe, and the distance was a trillion times greater than the diameter of the observable universe.

Would we be able to detect being inside?

To account for the age of the universe, it's a rotating BH and we're in an orbit around it's centroid.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Actually its been postulated that we live inside a black hole (our universe).

Man this looks like one of my posts ... I think I had something like this to explain redshift

I also have a thread that relates simularities to the end of the visible universe to the event horizon of a black hole.

So I really like this thread. Although the mass would need to be huge ... since even super-massive black holes event horizons are relatively small.

Mugs, this has been covered in numerous other threads...AstroCat's for one.

3 main reasons why not.

1. First and formost the 'event horizon' doesn't work that way... for the event horizon to remain 'stable' there must be a spiraling to down to a 'singularity' scenario. That means that ALL MBH's are cone shaped, so when you look towards the event horizon, you would have to 'pull it back over your head' so to speak, and make it a 'spherical' event horizon...there just ain't no such animal...
2. All of space and the galaxies in them would be heading toward the singularity.
3. The entire space inside would be rotating.

This does however leave one slight possibility...

IF, all of the galaxies are heading toward a "ring singularity" and the galaxies closer to the singularity are traveling faster than we are, and then we are traveling faster than any of the galaxies behind us, THEN we could not tell if the galaxies behind us were receding or getting closer to us.

BUT, again there would be the rotation, AND, the galaxies on the other side of the inward spiral should be blueshifted for us.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But if the entire spacetime within which we have existence is inside the BH, & if it is all rotating, how would we know it is rotating? A bug caught in a whirlpool that can only see the water around it doens't know it is moving faster & faster in an ever tightening spiral, because everything around it is moving at the same pace.

Also, maybe we just can't see the other side of the spiral? After all, there's a singularity between us - how would the light get here?

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Everything you mentioned seemed to imply we were outside the EH.

My postulate was that we were inside the EH.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Actually the answer to this is quite simple...

The CMBR is real. It is just NOT what mainstream is saying it is...that being the Last Scattering of the almost infinite heat of the Plasma Highest energy Gamma radiation, once it cooled enough for the Gamma rays to become able to shine through space and 'be stretched' with expansion to what we see today as microwaves. Space didn't/doesn't expand 'from a 'smaller' Grapefruit size.

That being said,,,

The Microwave "Background" Radiation (and Background is the key word here) is very nearly homogenous and very isotropic, SO we would see any of the rotation we are speaking of, in that background radiation, IF it were there.


We do NOT see that!

Sorry, NO, the singualrity is NOT between us and another observer...It is always 'below' us, until we are both 'going through' the Ring~~~!!!

BUT, you see, IF you are really doing 'science', YOU would ONLY be considering what could/would be "REAL" for the 'particles' that can exist there!!!

NO spaceship OR human could ever survive the trip through the VERY hot accretion disc, let along the tidal effects/Gravity/magnetic stretching/Spaghettification of crossing the event horizon. It's like trying to determine what affects there would be for an ant/human walking on the SUN...

Much more concern for domains of applicability (Real Cause/Effect) Must be adhered to!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Everything I said applied to be 'Within"/inside the event horizon of a UBH.

The only reason I can think of that you said that, was because I mentioned 'galaxies' being in there.

UMMMMMM...the only other thing that I can think of, is that you think that mainstreams current use of all their 'horizons', are 'real black hole horizons'. They are NOT real black hole horizons!

They are very careful about that, and when the occasions have presented themselves, they are clear on that, BUT also admit that they do not really understand how their horizons really work. IE: they are 'spherical' horizons (Baloon), BUT the 'expansion' as we look out in any given direction is always "Planar" or Linear...ant on the rope thingy...

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But if we're inside the BH, the CMBR would also be rotating along with us.
As the thread is speculative to begin with, I have to ask...

But what if we came into being already inside the singularity? Your presumption that we somehow came through the event horizon to be inside the 'universe BH' is not matched by what we see around us, ie. everything we see & know of seems to have been here from the beginning.

So, if a universe out there in the multiverse collapsed in a big crunch, forming a truly super-massive BH, then the speculation would be that our entire universe has developed from the moment of the big crunch. So the ultimate-hot singularity would have cooled as it expanded into the new 'spacetime' inside the singularity.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

[QUOYE=Acolyte]
But if we're inside the BH, the CMBR would also be rotating along with us.[/quote]

Yes close by it would, but 'way over there', we would see sideways motion.

What size do you think a 'singualrity' is... Sorry, couldn't resist.

When a Black Hole forms, due to a Gravitational collapse (First stars were modeled, and then Massive Black Holes in Galaxies, which they still do NOT know how those form!!! But I do!), an event horizon forms, that then 'spirals down'.

Now, with no models at all, they would just spiral all the way down to 0 dimension.

But, if Black holes are real, and I believe that they do physically exist, and are therefore "Real", then there must be a 'tending toward 0 solution to the downward spiral.

Mainstream has worked this out, and for a Non-rotating Black Hole, it turns our that there is a solution that ends in a "Point" Singularity. That is called a Schwarzschild Black Hole solution. However, If the Black Hole does rotate, then the solution, tending toward 0, is a "Ring" Singularity, and that is called a Kerr Black Hole.

That "Ring" is very very very TINY, and is at the very bottom of the spiraling, tending toward 0.

AND, since we have never found even one Non-rotating Black Hole in 70+ years, the solution for the "point Singularity" is mathematically MOOT!

Sorry, here I was more or less ranting a little about how the 'scientists' are Sci-Fy'ing what is happening in our "real" SMBH's!!!

Sorry, but this is a common confusion...the expanding /contracting/static universe has nothing to do with being "IN" a Huge Black Hole....the Horizons that mainstream uses, are NOT Black Hole Event Horizons.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

It's OK, I understand, but given the initial post, you seem to be making an assumption that isn't warranted. That is, that the laws governing the super-universe (for want of a better term) that collapsed into the super-massive BH inside which our existence perceives a Universe actually has laws & events the same as what we experience.

Now, correct me if I'm off line here, but it seems to me if our Universe is inside a singularity in (say) an 8-Dimensional Superverse BH, it's at least possible the rules 'out there' as well as the experience 'in here' would be different to those hypothesised for a BH within out 4D spacetime.

You're arguing from laws that apply within the subset from which we are speculating about the superset that might have produced our subset. I'm not sure you can do that successfully.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

You still seem to think that 'singularity' means everything 'below the event horizon', even after my explanation of 'what tending toward 0' means.

You also seem to think that you 'know' what this even means! What the heck is that, OR [[the super-universe (for want of a better term) that collapsed into the super-massive BH ]] for that matter???

You are taking the 'horizons' that mainstream uses, and assuming that those horizons apply to Black Holes............They do NOT!!!

And you do not understand 'dimensions' as they apply to our real universe, but then again, Neither does mainstream...because they have "Time" as a fourth dimension and then seperate time and space only to reconnect at again with 'spacetime' through Minkowski 'space'.

'Time' should be a constant and therefore be 'dimensionless' and set in a "Background Field" just as 'space' being the Aether that IS the Background radiation in Microwaves should be.

That is the intrinsic energy of space and what makes up the 'vibrating Strings/Branes' of "M" Theory. All of Space is made up of this energy and is carried by the Neutrinos traveling at "c" in all/every direction, going right through ALL baryonic Matter....that is the DM and DE all rolled into one, That is the expansion...the Neutrinos going to infinity in every direction.

NOT though from a Grapefruit sized beginning.

Now, for dimensions...String "M" theory (11 D) came from 10 Dimensional String theory.

There are ONLY 3 macro dimensions + Time.

Now, When String theory really became noteable, there were two camps, 10d and 11d, and through numerous subtle supposed breakthroughs, 10d got the upper hand in popularity, BUT that whole time, the guy who had started the 11d, Michael Duff, held to his guns, and because of "Popularity" had a difficult time recruiting the "Brainiacs" to his 11d side, but was convinced he was on the right track, and would ultimately prevail.

Now, once 10d string theory was thoroughly worked through, there were 5 solutions to the supposed theory of everything (TOE), and it was obvious that there could not be 5, SO, string theory was in "REAL" trouble.

Enter>>> Ed Witten, who decided that since String theory was all but done and over, that he should try to see if the 11d stuff might hold 'some inkling' of hope...

AND, being the genius that he defintely is, he found that the 5 String Solutions were actually subsets of combinations of the 5 solutions, IN 11D.

Now, those 11 dimensions work like this....there are 6 Micro dimensions. those are the strings that are 3d micro, some looped and connected, other not connected, BUT those are all micro strings, meaning that when looking at a hose/or say strand of spaghetti from far off, they look like a "line", BUT IF you could see them 'up close and personal' they truely are 3d like spaghetti.

SO, that is 6 micro d's + 3 xyz d's + 1 Time, and the 11thD is "OUR UNIVRSE".

Now, that is how that works....I will post tonight, where the problem of 'thinking of our universe' as ONE BRANE has 'totally confused' everything and give a link for what I expalined above, although that BBC account doesn't go into quite the detail I just did.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Nope, I don't think I know much at all - have you seen my sig? But I do see that you are making statements as truth that might be correct (or might not) in this universe but may have little bearing on the external 'whatever' outside the super-massive BH proposed by the OP.

Seems to me the thread is about speculation of something beyond what we know & you're countering by telling me that isn't how things are in our universe.

And, to be honest, I've yet to hear from anyone who has convinced me they can actually perceive of what more dimensions than what we percieve are actually like. It's OK to have math to tell us, but the math exists within our set of dimensions - it's (to me) quite possible the math will not work once you try to run it from within the extra dimensions.

I can tell you all about what it is like to be a dolphin & 'see' via sound, but it's very likely that if I became a dolphin the experience would be vastly different from what I describe before being a dolphin.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Actually there is one tiny flaw in the argument. The variation of the drag of space would mean at varying intervals of time matter would need to be in the higher or lower components of its composition (strange, proton, lambda and so on) and incapable of being seen as hydrogen and helium the length of the visible universe.

The other point would be the non uniform stretch of space giving a complex underlying manifold upon which our perception of four dimensional expanding structure could not possibly hope to be uniform.

Now if you could apply the idea to a uniform density over knowable distance of the life of the universe as viewed in time with the stretch or compression of space providing a simpler and uniform manifold then it might get a start, as it is sorry a definite non starter.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

All you are doing is saying that there could be things working in infinite different ways than anything we know, which of course I cannot refute.

BUT I can tell you that the "horizons' you think you are talking about, that pertain to Black Hole Event Horizons are not the horizons that mainstream is using!

Actually mainstream has caused ALL of the confusion about black holes and singularities, by postulating in the first place that a 'singularity' can be 'naked' (not covered by an event horizon) Cosmic Censorship, AND, that a 'singularity' can ever expand, especially 'spherically'....SO, the FLRW EFE Schwarzschild "Inside solution" of an expanding naked "Point"singularity, which was naively done at the very start, when Einstein Naively included Lambda, for a 'spherically curved' universe to hold up the universe against that collapse of the whole universe.

BUT, In a "real" gravitational collapse, an event horizon forms, which is the only way a 'singualrity' in it's depths can form, and we have never found even ONE non-rotating Black Hole.....SO, the mathematical solution for a "point Singularity" is meaningless........until we find a non-rotating Black Hole!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But if, as proposed in the OP, everything we know & have ever known is inside a tremendously super-massive BH, then what we know is automatically circumscribed by being inside conditions that don't exist 'out there' - isn't it?

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

you post like you know what is inside a black hole ...
In fact anything beyond the event horizon is not definable.

Maybe the singularity is what we consider the edge of the visibl