The universe and time, a theory, is it plausible?

Question

My theory abou the universe is that...

A black hole was the source of the "Big Bang" the start of this universe, this can be explained because time can flow in 2 directions, forwards and backwards, so a black hole with time flowing backwards would expel matter instead of consuming it.

It is shown that all matter in the universe is moving away from all other matter and is speeding up, einstein said that matter travelling at a sufficiently high speed could in theory travel back in time, that means once all the matter in our universe reaches this speed it will move back in time to the point the universe was created (back to the black hole, with bacwards flowing time), this is where I am not sure what happens, does it just stop and fade from existence or does it all begin again?

If it begins again, I think this would mean we could have existed and died an infinite number of times again and again in a loop of time....

Is free will an illusion? are we just following a preset path

Answer 1

The idea that our universe might have started as a black hole was proposed by physicist Lee Smolin in his book "The Life of the Cosmos". The core of his idea is that his notion of "fecund universes", which gives rise to a sort of cosmological natural selection. Universes have different laws of nature, and they evolve in a "multiverse" which favors the production of black holes – and the sorts of laws that give rise to black holes are the laws that most favor the sorts of physics and chemistry that gives rise to life as we know it. Each black hole is that creation of a new universe. What we know as the "cosmic horizon" (the point about 15 billion light years away where things are going away from us faster than the speed of light – just making it impossible for us to see beyond the horizon) is just a black hole horizon as viewed from the inside. In other words, if we could view our cosmic horizon from the perspective of the multiverse beyond our horizon, our cosmic horizon would just be the event horizon of a black hole – our universe would just be a black hole.
Regarding some of your specific statements:
In practical terms, matter cannot accelerate from less than the speed of light to greater than the speed of light (it would take infinite energy to achieve this acceleration), but I'm not sure what to say about matter bursting out in the form of a "white hole"/big bang creation of a new universe with new laws of physics. I think that time in our ordinary conception is almost meaningless in light of relativity and quantum mechanics. On way to conceive of anti-particles is that they are the mathematical equivalent of an ordinary particle traveling backward in time. So, for example, a positron is mathematically the same as an electron traveling backwards in time. But you cannot actually accelerate an electron faster to than light. A positron can be created in a collision, but it is created in this form, it is not just an electron that has been accelerated beyond light speed.

The idea of infinite loops of time is tricky, but I think it is basically incoherent. The universe may be infinite in some respects, but it is also limited in some respects. Our everyday conception of time is already a problem (mostly an illusion) so extrapolating our ordinary idea of time to infinity just deepens the incoherence of our muddle. I would say there is no ultimate metaphysical distinction between what you are thinking of as two identical worlds. If two worlds are truly identical in all respects, then they are really just one and the same world being imagined as a repeated loop due to our inability to really understand what time is in the first place.

On the subject of free will, I would say that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is no accident (pardon the pun). I would say this principle arose in physics because as physics gets closer to the fundamentals of Being, the existence of free will had to come out in our math in some form, assuming the math represents reality. In other words, if free will is genuine, then something like quantum uncertainty HAD to crop up in our physics as some point. So, even though we know that the randomness of the Uncertainty Principle does not, in itself, explain free will (because randomness is no better at explaining "agent causation" than deterministic laws), nevertheless, Uncertainty does slam the door on strict determinism, and slamming this door in one way or another is absolutely essential to explaining free will – even though randomness in itself is not totally sufficient to explain free will.

I have discussed the philosophical and scientific bases for free will in several other answers, so you might want to scan over my profile to see my other answers on this topic.

Answer 2

Well, as theories go (on this site at least) it's not a bad one. The heart of a black hole is a singularity where all rules of physics break down (anything can happen in other words) - and they believe that the big bang emerged from a similar state. So so far, so good.

But, unless I'm very much mistaken, Einstein never said that time could or would run backwards - that's not to say that that's impossible, just that relativity does not actually suggest that..

There's also a branch of science that believes that the universe is indeed on a perpetual loop of inflation and contraction. Whether this mean that you and I will continue to live in some way through this (even if we're unaware of it) is doubtful.

It's unlikely that life such as ours could continue to exist in any way while time "runs backwards" - dying before we are born etc. So that means that, by the time the universe has contracted down again (the Big Crunch) we would be long gone. The universe may well start to grow again, but it will emerge once again from a point of singularity, and it is highly, highly unlikely that the exact conditions would be created to allow for humanity again, let alone you and I.

But I like your thinking, Stephen.

Answer 3

Unfortunately matter travelling at a really high speed (say as close to the speed of light as you can get) wouldn't go back in time!

Even if it did manage to get above the speed of light (and thus get to the crazy-place where causality doesn't apply and things can travel back in time) it wouldn't immediately change direction and go back from where it came! The particles would keep travelling outwards and outwards (think conservation of momentum, an absolute law)

What you may want to think about is Quantum Randomness and a new theory (which I'm afraid I don't have any references to) that claims to have found an underlying principle to the quantum wave function.

Assuming you don't have a physics degree (apologies if you do) the Quantum Wave Function is a way of thinking of any event or outcome in space-time, you find the right equation for, say, a light particle; plug in all the numbers (energy, wavelength etc) and it will give you a *probability* as to where you'll find that light particle. Many philosophers have used this to say that there is ultimate free will - if randomness prevails then something, I suppose spiritual, could have influence over our rigourously scientific world.

However this new theory says that there is a (stupidly complex) equation that represents a really-really-quick vibration in the fabric of the universe that then collapses from 6 dimensional space into the complex wave equations that quantum mechanics knows so well. The exciting bit (and potentially very disturbing) is that this new 6D equation can be absolutely predicted, but its about for such a short amount of time we can't (currently) measure it. If we could then we'd be able to make predictions about the future with absolute clarity - and hence forth, no freewill. (This new equation I've described here sounds like its part of M-theory/superstrings, its not supposed to!)

Of course this is only a theory, and even if it were true, there could always be an underlying-underlying equation that puts randomness back into the mix. Who knows!

Answer 4

Not sure about a black hole being the source of the big band. If there was no space and time before the big bang, where was the black hole? Was it in space? But it could not be. Which came first - the black hole or the big bang? Your theory is not plausible as well. The universe is expanding, but it is not at all likely that any matter will move at the speed of light as a result of this expansion. And if it did, why should time go back? Why not forwards?

Answer 5

The equations for getting close to the speed of light show that the closer you get to the speed of light the more energy you need inputted into the system as objects tend to infinity in mass, so infinite energy is required to keep up the acceleration to c.

My opinion on free will is that essentially it does not exist but in most cases in humanity it exists. I have previous ansewerd this question and it similar to the chicken and the egg!

Answer 6

there is incredibly 3 factors right here--as to the 1st: the "universe" is finate--in that that is an increasing yet bounded area containing the massive (yet finite) totality of mass and capability that's the "stuff" of the universe. As to what's "exterior the universe--there are countless theories, yet that is a question technology isn't in a position to ansewer (yet). Is there a commencing up? particular--that's what the "massive Bang" concept says. The concept of a "middle" as you state it, whether, isn't (precisely maximum suitable. in keeping with present day wisdom, we predict of of the universe as being on the "floor" of a four-dimensional bbubble. by analogy, in case you factor of a balloon, it exists in 3 dimensions, however the exterior is two-dimensional. The universe is a three-D "floor" on a 4-D "bubble" that is increasing. So in 3-dimensional words, there is not any "middle"--nevertheless the belief may well be valid if framed in a multi-dimensional context.

Answer 7

At the Quantum level things do not follow pre-set paths ... rather individual elements operate according to the laws of chance.

Thus, even if you started with exactly the same conditions (big bang) the Universe would unfold in a different way each time ..

Answer 8

it is called the theory of the perpetually oscillating universe. your introduction of a black hole into the mix is somewhat unique. but there are many errors here.
one . Einstein never said that, and it is not generally accepted outside of science fiction. also time does not flow. furthermore it does not account for where anything came from originally and suggests that every time that you spill a teaspoon of sugar from the same height that the granules will fall in the same pattern and this is quite unlikely.

Answer 9

i know some thing now you are right because if that happens there will be wierd weather and events that was happeneing in the past like rainstorms almost evryday

Answer 10

einstein said you can slow down time. as your speed approaches c your time approaches stopping, it continuously slows down, but he doesnt say that it goes backwards. use that idea to modify your reasoning. cheers