I was watching a History Channel documentary on parallel universe's and I noticed near the end they talked about traveling through a black hole to get to one. They said because of the size, they'd have to send a tiny nanobot with our DNA to the other side instead of sending people.
If everything gets stretched as it goes in, IF there is another way out, would the object that went in come out normal?
you need to work on your troll sense, novice.
still typing from another universe to call you a faggot
Needs moar wormholes
>>1 traveling through a black hole
>>through a black hole
>>a black hole
>>black hole
Enjoy your lethal X-ray irradiation before you even pass the event horizon and are torn apart down to your constituent subatomic particles and possibly further than that by tidal forces.
SCIENCE!!
>>7
just hit the event horizon at 0.999c, problem solved.
So, I was thinking. If it is a "parallel" universe, does that not mean that it is detached from our own universe? Does that not mean that since it has no connection to our on universe, it is unreachable to any form, since the universe is "everything"? A "parallel" universe thus means another "everything", but since we can already see, and in the future perhaps reach "everything", how can we detect this other universe? Since they are parallel to each other, existing side by side, there could be an infinite amount of parallel universes beside our own. And if one can actually reach this "parallel" universe, it means there is a connection to our own, making this "parallel" universe just another part of our own universe?
>If it is a "parallel" universe, does that not mean that it is detached from our own universe?
It should occupy the same space/time, I guess.
>Does that not mean that since it has no connection to our on universe, it is unreachable to any form, since the universe is "everything"?
If it occupies the same space/time, it could be argued that it's part of our universe.
>A "parallel" universe thus means another "everything", but since we can already see, and in the future perhaps reach "everything", how can we detect this other universe?
If the trick to reach that universe was for example by changing phases at the subatomic level, we could build a out-of-phase camera that sees the other side.
>Since they are parallel to each other, existing side by side, there could be an infinite amount of parallel universes beside our own.
Or maybe there is only a limited amount of parallel universes, due to some cosmic law barrier similar to the speed of light.
>And if one can actually reach this "parallel" universe, it means there is a connection to our own, making this "parallel" universe just another part of our own universe?
Yeah. But that would be arguing over semantics.
The subject of this thread is... out there (at the moment). On the other hand, try this:
>Cosmologists Alan Coley from Canada's Dalhousie University and Bernard Carr from Queen Mary University in London, have published a paper on arXiv, where they suggest that some so-called primordial black holes might have been created in the Big Crunch that came before the Big Bang, which lends support to the theory that the Big Bang was not a single event, but one that occurs over and over again as the universe crunches down to a single point, then blows up again, over and over.
This all seems unlikely and the Big Crunch is not one of the more popular theories of the end of the universe at the moment. I'm more of a heat death guy myself (see you there summer of 10^1700 years from now!).
If it turns out that the Big Crunch is a possibility and that something can survive it that's... interesting. It's not terribly useful to living things, but still interesting.
A lot of useful information about the topic can be found here:
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html
Technically, it is possible to survive falling through event horizon of a supermassive black hole as they are so large that tidal forces are not strong enough to tear you apart or make spaghetti out of you before you reach it - but you're not going to survive much longer.
Even though a rotating black hole can theoretically connect universes and let you go through, it would have to be completely "clean" - i.e. no matter or even radiation "falling" into it, or you crash into this pile of dirt rather than passing into the other universe. And such clean black holes probably don't exist as if nothing else, every black hole is absorbing interstellar matter and relict radiation.
So, if we had an impossible black hole (with not a single particle falling into it for us to crash into when we get to the bottom; hell, a hydrogen atom could kill you) then we might fall out on the other side. The other side is ???
I'm not sure this is the least bit practical given we could some day create black holes at will. Even if we could find a corner of the universe sufficiently dark and empty, we'd have a problem. Follow me on this: the first thing sucked into our artificial black hole: the apparatus for making a black hole. Oops. Oh wait, then our star ship trying to go through to the other side or possibly just some exhaust or a paint fleck off of it from earlier.
Practically speaking, (even for the highly speculative nature of this board) this is impossible. There does seem to be hope in it though. There is the slightest chance in hell that there is a method for crossing vast distances by utilizing enormous amounts of energy. Humanity loves wasting resources for suicide missions. It's how we got to the moon, after all and it's probably how we'll get to Mars. ??? here we come.
Bad surprises and altered vacuum states will await the intrepid traveller who decides to move too close to the edge of spacetime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
Black holes - shredders that you can only reach after an infinity of time has elapsed for the outside observer? Likely.
Black holes sure are shredders but if you happen to fall into one, it won't take you infinite amount of time to fall there and you won't see all the future of our universe. You even probably won't notice any significant time dilatation before you fall through the event horizon.
It may take outside observer infinite time to watch your gradually more and more redshifted image falling into the event horizon, but you're not there anymore, not even for that observer. It's just that it takes light so long reaching the observer against the gravity waterfall that he still can see you there.
Yes! This is rather well explained here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm
Having discussed the prospects for hovering near a black hole, let's review the process by which an object may actually fall through an event horizon. If we program a space probe to fall freely until reaching some randomly selected point outside the horizon and then accelerate back out along a symmetrical outward path, there is no finite limit on how far into the future the probe might return. This sometimes strikes people as paradoxical, because it implies that the in-falling probe must, in some sense, pass through all of external time before crossing the horizon, and in fact it does, if by "time" we mean the extrapolated surfaces of simultaneity for an external observer. However, those surfaces are not well-behaved in the vicinity of a black hole. It's helpful to look at a drawing like this:
[drawing]
This illustrates schematically how the analytically continued surfaces of simultaneity for external observers are arranged outside the event horizon of a black hole, and how the in-falling object's worldline crosses (intersects with) every timeslice of the outside world prior to entering a region beyond the last outside timeslice. The timeslices can be modeled crudely as simple "right" hyperbolic branches of the form tj - T = 2m ln(r/2m – 1) so T is the (inward) Eddington-Finkelstein time coordinate. We just repeat this same shape, shifted vertically, up to infinity. Notice that all of these infinitely many time slices curve down and approach the same asymptote on the left. To get to the "last timeslice" an object must go infinitely far in the vertical direction, but only finitely far in the horizontal (leftward) direction.
This also brings up Greg Egan's "Planck Dive" short story:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PLANCK/Complete/Planck.html
With Applets and everything
Assuming time really exists, that would be great to try out, again, assuming time exists.