The Universe Inside You Pdf
Nguyet Edmondson
The universe exists within us, and we exist within the universe.
For thousands of years mankind has been allured by this fascinating, elusive concept. Each and every technological invention has been an attempt to reconcile our inner desires with our outward experiences.
With the idea of being inside a black-hole, it is easier to represent this as being the matter entering the black-hole. From our position, and as we are attracted by the singularity, everything seems to expand wherever we look at. And as far as we can look at, we can only see the cosmic background radiation.
On the contrary of matter entering the black-hole, dark matter is the matter already in front of us and we'll never be able to access it as its light (i.e. information) cannot go backward within the singularity.
Time is a dimension like any other and as we feel x,y,z dimensions as a field of view, we fell time as an irrepressible attraction toward the singularity. Gravity may be see also as a less irrepressible dimension (depending on mass around).
Other black-hole we "see" may let us envision the shape of the universe not as simple torus, but higher dimensional "toric" shape with "connections" everywhere (maybe shapes like high order atomic orbitals ?).
There's a lot to pick apart in everything you try to propose, as it includes a lot of far fetched (or at least rather non-standard) claims. I am frankly not up to attempting to address every one of them, if for no other reason than that it makes the question as a whole rather too broad for my taste (and perhaps more in the territory of Physics.SE, which has quite a lot of answered questions concerning black holes).
There is, however, the following simple and amusing observation: current estimates of the mass-energy of the observable universe tell us that it is too dense to be a black hole. That might sound a little weird if you're not familiar with black holes. In fact, the density of a (non-rotating, Schwarzchild) blackhole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass, and the radius is directly proportional to the mass. More explicitly:$$r=\frac2 G Mc^2,$$$$\rho(M) = \frac3 c^632 \pi G^3\cdot \frac1M^2,$$where $r$ is the radius, $\rho$ is the density, $M$ is the mass, $c$ is the speed of light, and $G$ is the gravity constant.
No, since any matter inside a black hole will not be in a stable solid state. This happens because the gravitational force at the inside of a black hole is huge and powerful, because it's formed by the collapse of a star under its own mass.
So say for your question there might have been a immensely huge supernova, which became a black hole. In turn, the Big Bang happened to form our universe. Would not that be reverting the black hole laws?
Particle accelerators use electric fields to speed up and energize a beam of particles, which are steered and focused by magnetic fields while the beam travels. Electric fields spaced around the accelerator switch from positive to negative at a given frequency, creating radio waves that accelerate particles in bunches.
Two long tubes stretch to what seems like infinity to the human eye at SLAC: one large aluminum tube on the bottom and a smaller copper tube on top, where the electrons are. More than 150 microwave generators called klystrons move the electrons along.
Over the following years, SLAC won three Nobel prizes for its early research, including the discovery of two fundamental particles, proving protons are made of quarks, and showing how DNA directs protein manufacturing in cells.
But of course, science has moved on from these first, basic lines of inquiry, and so has SLAC. The facilities on this campus are constantly being modernized to allow scientists to stay on the cutting edge of research.
You know the MRI machine doctors use to get a 3D picture of your organs and tissues? Now imagine using that X-ray light that particles speeding through a linear accelerator throw off to look at your insides at the molecular level.
Scientists are also trying to find ways to make the equipment smaller, cheaper, and capable of operating at room temperature so that one day, the equivalent of an MRI machine could be available to many more people.
Rachael Myrow: Leland Stanford, the super rich railroad baron, bred and raced horses on the land he later built the university on. In the 1870s, Stanford hired a guy named Eadweard Muybridge to photograph those horses
Rachael Myrow: The building that houses this thing is almost two miles long and the cameras, instead of recording sunlight bouncing off horses, use ultra bright x-ray light those particles throw off to create freeze frame movies of molecules. Also, when they move fast, they buzz. A lot.
Rachel Spurlock: Yeah, Nowadays, I think it would be very rare to find a linear accelerator the way we have here at SLAC. Most are built circular. But we also have some accelerator research going on here at SLAC. One portion of our original 1960s accelerator is dedicated to research to shorten the length of accelerators.
Archival Video: The largest and most expensive tool in the world, in a pastoral setting. Music. What the nation is investing in this accelerator, and the contribution which Stanford is making in terms of its land, are used to buy knowledge and fundamental understanding of nature.
Rachael Myrow: Over the following years, SLAC won 3 Nobel prizes for its early research, including: the discovery of two fundamental particles, proving protons are made of quarks, and showing how DNA directs protein manufacturing in cells.
Rachael Myrow: Yes! Now, as then, SLAC functions like a cutting edge research hacker space. Anybody can propose a project, and if receiving the thumbs up from a research committee, do their experiment at one of the facilities. Which are constantly being upgraded and modernized to allow for scientists to stay on the cutting edge of research.
Rachael Myrow: And not just using the linear accelerators. Yes, plural. SLAC is home to a campus full of different lab spaces doing different things, using X-rays, lasers and electron beams for groundbreaking experiments.
Rachael Myrow: Watching chemical reactions as they happen, at the molecular level, could lead to groundbreaking insights in a variety of fields, from computing to pharmaceuticals to aerospace to clean energy.
Our show is produced by Katrina Schwartz, Christopher Beale, and me, Olivia-Allen Price. Additional support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Cesar Saldana, Maha Sanad, Carly Severn, Bianca Taylor, Holly Kernan and the whole KQED Family.
It is currently a topic of debate and research whether or not the universe is inside a black hole. Some theories suggest that the Big Bang, which is believed to have created the universe, may have occurred inside a singularity (a point of infinite density) within a black hole.
No, we cannot see inside a black hole because even light cannot escape its strong gravitational pull. However, scientists can study the effects of black holes on their surroundings, such as the distortion of light and the emission of radiation, to learn more about them.
If the universe is indeed inside a black hole, it would have massive implications for our understanding of physics and the universe as a whole. It could also potentially answer some of the biggest mysteries in science, such as the origin of the universe and the nature of black holes themselves.
Two research papers published in Physical Review Letters and Physical Review D are the first to detail how to search for signatures of other universes. Physicists are now searching for disk-like patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation -- relic heat radiation left over from the Big Bang -- which could provide tell-tale evidence of collisions between other universes and our own.
Many modern theories of fundamental physics predict that our universe is contained inside a bubble. In addition to our bubble, this `multiverse' will contain others, each of which can be thought of as containing a universe. In the other 'pocket universes' the fundamental constants, and even the basic laws of nature, might be different.
Until now, nobody had been able to find a way to efficiently search for signs of bubble universe collisions -- and therefore proof of the multiverse -- in the CMB radiation, as the disc-like patterns in the radiation could be located anywhere in the sky. Additionally, physicists needed to be able to test whether any patterns they detected were the result of collisions or just random patterns in the noisy data.
"It's a very hard statistical and computational problem to search for all possible radii of the collision imprints at any possible place in the sky," says Dr Hiranya Peiris, co-author of the research from the UCL Department of Physics and Astronomy. "But that's what pricked my curiosity."
The team ran simulations of what the sky would look like with and without cosmic collisions and developed a ground-breaking algorithm to determine which fit better with the wealth of CMB data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). They put the first observational upper limit on how many bubble collision signatures there could be in the CMB sky.
Stephen Feeney, a PhD student at UCL who created the powerful computer algorithm to search for the tell-tale signatures of collisions between "bubble universes," and co-author of the research papers, said: "The work represents an opportunity to test a theory that is truly mind-blowing: that we exist within a vast multiverse, where other universes are constantly popping into existence."
One of many dilemmas facing physicists is that humans are very good at cherry-picking patterns in the data that may just be coincidence. However, the team's algorithm is much harder to fool, imposing very strict rules on whether the data fits a pattern or whether the pattern is down to chance.
Dr Daniel Mortlock, a co-author from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London, said: "It's all too easy to over-interpret interesting patterns in random data (like the 'face on Mars' that, when viewed more closely, turned out to just a normal mountain), so we took great care to assess how likely it was that the possible bubble collision signatures we found could have arisen by chance."