Ultimate fate of the universe
Critique and fate of the Universe (continued, part 5)
Posts  1 - 2  of  2
This post is entered in 5 parts because it is long, segmenting makes it easier to reply and easier to read.

………………………..Critique and fate of the Universe (continued, part 5)..……………………

There is a proof of the singular nature of black holes, but it is being ignored. This proof was mentioned in an old paper by Michael Rowan Robinson. It can be found in ArXiv sometime after 1998. I ran across it by accident and I do not remember the title or year of publicatiion. I e-mailed him to ask if he could remember the paper where he made the comment.

In his comment, he said that it has been suggested that black holes, precisely and only because they are relativistic singularities, must posess an hyperbolic gravitational field. A singularity, as a single point mass with infinite density, must have a gravitational field that also tends to infinity as one approaches the center. The 2D profile of such a field, therefore, can be represented by an hyperbola. Normally, when an object exists in spacetime, it presents with an overall parabolic field profile according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Such a field will fall off as 1/r^2. But, a hyperbolic gravitational field will fall off much much more slowly, as 1/r.

In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom announced that he had discovered a new twist in Newton's Law of gravity. He studied a statistically significant number of spiral and other types of galaxies that had redshift measurements made of the rotational velocity distribution of their component stars. When he plotted velocity of these stars versus distance from the center, velocity did not fall to near zero as it should have at large r. Newton's Law was wrong!

Of course it was. Milgrom's galaxies had supermassive black holes embedded within them. The central black hole and even also the associated matter in the disk induced a hyperbolic gravitational field in spacetime even very far from the center, that is, as r tended to infinity. A hyperbolic field will tend to zero only very slowly at large r compared to a parabolic field. In fact, there is a near constant difference between a parabolic Newtonian field and a hyperbolic field generated by the same mass, as r tends to infinity. This near constant difference accounts for Milgrom's very small residual centripetal acceleration constant that he used to mathematically summarize his findings as an addition to Newton's Law. Hence, he called his model "modified Newtonian dynamics" or MOND.

He did not respect the implications of supermassive relativistic black holes in the nuclei of his galaxies. In 1983, most scientists hardly even knew of them. So, Dark Matter was proposed to account for the MOND effect. But, Dark Matter is unnecessary. No enormous clouds of hypothetical "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs are needed to account for the MOND effect. But, neither is a fundamental modification of Newton's Law of Gravity. This has huge implications to the so-called Lambda/Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that is based on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric (the so-called "Standard Model").

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild and others. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as rock-hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to validate an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect. See http :// www lonetree-pictures net for more citations.

I comment herein on Alan Guth's use of a point mass or singularity as a quantum object that could have sprung into existence as a statistical necessity of quantum theory. Schwartzchild previously validated the idea of such a point mass or singularity having an enormous mass - a black hole. Guth says having such a huge mass and energy is actually advantageous to such a point mass coming into existence because the statistical probability of a particle having extremely high values of these quantities is vastly higher than that for having low values simply because of the zero-point limit.

Many of Guth's ideas are not new. They are classic quantum theory, the most validated theory in all of science. The point of this is that if the universe was once a quantum object, then it still is. This also has incredibly huge implications. For instance, which quantum interpretation shall we use when evaluating the quantum nature of the universe? The Copenhagen Convention? The Many Worlds view?

Now, if the Many Worlds view is correct, there must be this global universe of which we see only a part and an anti-universe, solving the antimatter problem. Then, there must be at least two interference universes between Matter and Antimatter. All three would be superposed upon this universe so that their gravitational influence would be felt but they would be otherwise undetectable. This would go a long way toward solving the “missing mass” problem.

Numerous other more ancient writers have had their say almost a century ago: the universe is much more weird than we have ever imagined.


Now, as far as the ultimate fate of the universe is concerned, quantum theory may have something to say. Apparently, the universe is a mere virtual particle like those that constantly pop in and out of existence as part of the spacetime continuum. This is the upshot of Alan Guth’s Inflation theory. The virtual particles are real so far as they have measurable physical effects. For instance, they are responsible for the Casimir effect.

Our universe will eventually just collapse and cease to exist. But then, other universes will pop up and take its place. An effectively infinite number of these new universes guarantee that there will eventually be another universe exactly like this one. In other words, it will all happen again. Déjà vu all over again!

Infinitely. Endlessly.

But, not timelessly. All such scenarios imply a meta-universe and meta-time. So, we could do it all over again. That is, the universe may be – and probably is – fractal in nature. It is composed of copies of itself on every level. Therefore, the Fractal Theory of Benoit Mandelbrot (and Chaos Theory, outline by James Gleick, by extension) is more fundamental than anything else.
replied to:  GaryAnthony
Replied to:  This post is entered in 5 parts because it is long,...
Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau