Thank you for your reply! My response is interleaved below:

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM, meekerdb <> wrote:
> This is a commonplace.  So far as I know there are *no* physicists who think
> there are singularities in spacetime (and haven't been for a long time).
>  Everybody thinks that quantum effects prevent a singularity.  So as
> testable predictions goes thats (a) not very distinctive and (b) not really
> testable unless you fall into a black hole.

OK but I am not suggesting quantum effects do it, at least not quantum
effects as we understand it now.  I am suggesting that it all reduces
to gravity and topology.

>> Therefore every
>> "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two universes,
> Be careful.  A Rindler wedge is also an event horizon for the accelerated
> frame - but it hardly separates two universes.

OK I'm not sure about what that is, but I will look into the concept later.

>> where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with the inside
>> universe.
> Yes, that's a common idea too.  Some speculate that information is lost from
> this universe but is transferred into another universe via the black hole.
>  I don't know of any explicit calculation of this though.
>> The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding
>> supermassive black hole, of another universe.
> The trouble with this is it implies a "singularity" is in our future.  But
> the experimental evidence points to accelerating expansion and a de Sitter
> universe.

Well, my point is that, since no singularity exists, the separation
between every volume of space and its "outside" could be seen as an
event horizon from some frame of reference.  There's no such thing as
a "real" event horizon because a black hole never truly forms, and
there is never enough gravity to make it so that "light" cannot escape
from any volume.  In fact, all the light that enters any volume of
space eventually comes out, in the future, from the point of view of
the "outside".  From the point of view of the "inside", the light
basically travels through a wormhole into a closed "inner universe".
However, the "inner" and "outer" views are equivalent.  Both universes
see the "other" universe as the "inner" universe and its own universe
as the "outer".  As you fall through the wormhole, you basically
travel along a torus and invert the view.

>> However, because of
>> uncertainty about the macrostate of the universe, this means the
>> "outside universe" is effectively in a superposition of all possible
>> universes consistent with our observations.
> Why isn't the "inside universe" in a superposition?  That's where we observe
> superpositions.

See above.  I mean to say that both views are equivalent.  If you're
"inside", you see the "outside" as in a superposition.  If you're
"outside", you see the "inside" as superposition.  It basically means
that the uncertainty principle holds macroscopically as well as
microscopically, because you have limited information in both cases.

>> Equivalently, every
>> "classical" black hole is really in a microscopic superposition of all
>> possible states consistent with the outside world.
>> However, the Hubble volume in not truly closed: it receives
>> information one photon at a time
> Why one-at-a-time?  What would that even mean since there is no universal
> time?

Ok, I don't really mean one-at-a-time in some serial quantized manner.
 I just mean that, in some "computable" universe sense, the
information transfer is bit-by-bit, but that computation time might
not have any relationship to "real" time.

>> from the "outside" in the form of
>> cosmic background radiation,
> We already have a very good explanation for the CMB.

And this is another "equivalent" one.  I'm not supplanting any
explanation of cosmology right not, but merely adding to it in
conceptual terms.

>> which is information being about the
>> prior state of the otherwise casually disconnected universe, i.e. the
>> CMB and other parts of the observable universe outside our Hubble
>> volume.
> The CMB is well inside our Hubble volume.  Otherwise we couldn't see it.

Right maybe I was being imprecise about the CMB.  I mean, everything
outside of our Hubble volume but within the observable universe.  But
actually the Hubble volume is just an arbitrary choice too.  I mean to
say that this property of exchanging information bit-by-bit across
event horizons is true at the borders of every "system" and its
surroundings.  That's why length contraction and time dilation hold
universally around gravitational bodies.

>> Similarity, every "classical" black hole must leak information
>> to the outside world in the form of photons, i.e. Hawking radiation.
>> Equivalence between the CMB and Hawking radiation implies that space
>> must be "compressed" within a "black hole" in order to fit all the
>> information that is to leak out later, i.e. length contraction.
> Current theories point to the information in a BH being proportional to the
> surface area, most think that it is actually encoded on or just above the
> event horizon.

Right, well, my theory is that it is encoded with the BH, because the
BH does not have "no hair".  In fact, you can go "into" a supermassive
black hole and be perfectly fine, you basically would just be
travelling along a wormhole and inverting the local topology like a
torus.  A smaller blackhole will probably tear you apart though, not
because of a singularity but because of tidal forces.

>> Also,
>> since information comes out of a "black hole" more slowly than it goes
>> in, this implies time dilation.  This is what I mean when I say that
>> my theory retrodicts the qualitative features of QM and GR.
> It comes out later, but if BH evaporate as predicted by Hawking it has to
> come very, very rapidly at the end of evaporation.
>> Finally, my theory is that gravity is the only true force, but that
>> the other forces arise through photons going through microscopic black
>> holes at every point in space.
> Makes no sense.  Gravity isn't a force in GR yet you seem to be arguing that
> is can be the only force based on GR.  How does "arise" work in the above.
>> In fact, since black holes do not
>> "truly" exist in my theory, *every* point in space is, in theory, a
>> black hole, the topology of which depends on the initial conditions in
>> the Big Bang in our section of the universe.
> You seem to be arguing for a topological theory of phyiscs - but it needs to
> be fleshed out.  What are the dynamics of these BHs or wormholes and how
> does that produce the other forces?

Right, I am suggesting that all physics is essentially topology, and
that the topology is essentially completely based on general
relativity, except for modifications to handle cosmology and the black
hole information paradox.

Also, I want to make clear that my theory generates the following
testable hypotheses:

1. Since no black holes truly exist, the "supermassive black hole" is
really wormhole into another part of our universe which is
topologically distant in flat 3+1 space.

2. Entanglement and gravity are tied together, in the sense that when
entangled particles move apart from each other, the net gravitational
pull of the system decreases. When the entangled particles come back
together, the process unwinds itself. This is a solution to the EPR
paradox: i.e. it explains the mechanism for the apparent non-local
transfer of information between entangled particles.

3. The source of dark energy (and possibly dark matter) is
entanglement between portions of the visible universe. The fact that
this dark matter and dark energy seem to cancel out with visible
matter to produce an almost exactly flat local universe is NOT a
coincidence: the universe is and must always be approximately flat,
from a local point of view.

4. Quantum mechanics is deterministic based on non-local hidden
variables (i.e. something like Bohmian mechanics, when extended
relativistically, is true).

5. If we probe the observable but non-causally connected universe
(i.e. the universe outside the Hubble volume) as deeply as possible,
we may be able to find the primordial supermassive wormholes which
correspond to the other three fundamental forces of nature.

> Brent
>> Does that make any more sense? Please let me know if it does not.
>> F.H.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to