<p>More and more of modern theoretical physics deals with unphysical models and ideas. The only basis we have of predicting what is happening beyond an event horizon, ANY event horizon, is what we understand about what happens around us, on this side of that horizon. Feel perfectly safe in making up anything you wish about what the Physics is like beyond the event horizon, we'll never be able to contradict you. We'll never be able to falsify any claim made for events on the other side.</p>

<p>Purple people eaters? Why not? Ghosts and Gods? Sure. 1+1 = 3? Yup, that too. The event horizons in nature are the natural limits to our Universe. The edge, if you will. Unless and until we are able to observe consequences of the claims you make (called verifiable predictions) you're not dealing with Science, at least not what I regard as Science.</p>

<p>Right now, we know of 4 types of edges to our Universe:</p>

<ol>
<li>The edge at ~1E-44 seconds after the hypothetical Creation Event</li>
<li>The event horizon of any black hole</li>
<li>the event horizon at about 15-20 billion light-years distance (at which space is expanding at greater than the speed of light and</li>
<li>the edge of our Observable Universe (from which no signals will ever reach us).</li>
</ol>

<p>Physics is about what goes on on this side of these "edges". Metaphysics, philosophy, religion, opinion are what you may use to deal with those things beyond, but don't call it physics or science.</p>

<p>P.S. I am sympathetic to the idea that there may be an (as yet unknown) physical law which prevents singularities from actually forming. In fact, we have only weak indirect evidence that event horizons actually exist, and absolutely none that singularities form. Generally, when a physical theory and its mathematical expression leads to infinities, we change the theory - see renormalization.</p>

<p>You want to know about multiverses or what is beyond the event horizons of black holes? OK. I want to know about the color of the nail polish that the tortoise carrying the Universe on its back uses. Both are equally valid areas of inquiry. See for example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Proponents_and_skeptics" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Proponents_and_skeptics</a> ... and links found there.</p>

<p>I should also mention that you know an article which talks about events prior to time zero (which I call the Creation Event) are metaphysics and/or religious. None of them, I repeat: none of them are based on known Physics. (Why? because our known physics breaks down at about 10E-44 seconds, extrapolating back to t=0 isn't possible.) Sure they make an interesting story, but they should be regarded in the same way as any fiction. You get to choose which you like and which you don't without any regard for ever having to justify your choices.</p>

<p>Much of human knowledge is about narratives which allow us to understand our place in the Universe. It is part of our human nature to be curious and seek out narratives that make sense of our world. The set of scientific narratives differ from this set because the goal is different. They doesn't require our understanding (for instance, Feynman said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (1965) Little has changed since then.), they only require our ability to apply them to make/verify observations.</p>

<p>Creating a satisfying narrative does not require the scientific method(s) be enforced. But ignore them at your peril.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T20:03:03.927Z
What constitutes "science" is a complex question in my mind.  So you can take, say, the equations of general relativity and show that you can extend and stitch together metrics past an event horizon to get an expanding spacetime within the interior.  Is that science? Physics? It's at least mathematics.  But is mathematics not science?  Does it have to be relevant to the "real world" to be science?  Which is what? What then of things that at first seem irrelevant but later become relevant?  What of studying things which aren't "real", but may enlighten and direct investigations of the "real"?
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-17T23:16:57.420Z
Actually it might be possible to preclude SOME theories about what goes on inside a black hole by probing it through dropping, say, positively charged particles into it, then seeming to what extent charge is conserved, how the field is distributed around the black hole (and its strength), etc.  Though I don't see us doing that soon...
AlaskaRon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T18:50:07.947Z
2016-07-14T19:13:29.193Z
2016-07-14T19:13:29.193Z
Li Zhi
<p>The thought <strike>crossed</strike> kidnapped my mind one night almost a year ago. I was laying down, but I was very interested in thinking about the secrets of a black-hole.</p>

<p><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140218-black-hole-blast-explains-big-bang/" rel="nofollow"><strong>Nat. Geo. - News article</strong></a></p>

<p>What does the current state of research tell us about the idea that black holes might form universes?</p>

<p>Don't forget to backup your answer!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T13:42:00.817Z
Related: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10879/is-massenergy-conserved-when-a-new-universe-forms-inside-a-black-hole
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T13:54:58.230Z
wow! great link voyage! appreciate your welcoming of me too.
David your friend
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T14:13:32.003Z
Thanks! Yes, welcome to Astronomy Stack Exchange. If you haven't already, check out the [Tour](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/tour) and the [Help Center](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/help).
called2voyage
<black-hole>
How well supported are the theories of black-holes containing their own universes?
David your friend
# How well supported are the theories of black-holes containing their own universes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-14)

The thought crossed kidnapped my mind one night almost a year ago. I was laying down, but I was very interested in thinking about the secrets of a black-hole.

[**Nat. Geo. - News article**](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140218-black-hole-blast-explains-big-bang/)

What does the current state of research tell us about the idea that black holes might form universes?

Don't forget to backup your answer!

**Tags:** black-hole

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10879/is-massenergy-conserved-when-a-new-universe-forms-inside-a-black-hole  
> **username_0**: wow! great link voyage! appreciate your welcoming of me too.  
> **username_1**: Thanks! Yes, welcome to Astronomy Stack Exchange. If you haven't already, check out the [Tour](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/tour) and the [Help Center](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/help).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-07-14. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

More and more of modern theoretical physics deals with unphysical models and ideas. The only basis we have of predicting what is happening beyond an event horizon, ANY event horizon, is what we understand about what happens around us, on this side of that horizon. Feel perfectly safe in making up anything you wish about what the Physics is like beyond the event horizon, we'll never be able to contradict you. We'll never be able to falsify any claim made for events on the other side.

Purple people eaters? Why not? Ghosts and Gods? Sure. 1+1 = 3? Yup, that too. The event horizons in nature are the natural limits to our Universe. The edge, if you will. Unless and until we are able to observe consequences of the claims you make (called verifiable predictions) you're not dealing with Science, at least not what I regard as Science.

Right now, we know of 4 types of edges to our Universe:

1. The edge at ~1E-44 seconds after the hypothetical Creation Event
2. The event horizon of any black hole
3. the event horizon at about 15-20 billion light-years distance (at which space is expanding at greater than the speed of light and
4. the edge of our Observable Universe (from which no signals will ever reach us).

Physics is about what goes on on this side of these "edges". Metaphysics, philosophy, religion, opinion are what you may use to deal with those things beyond, but don't call it physics or science.

P.S. I am sympathetic to the idea that there may be an (as yet unknown) physical law which prevents singularities from actually forming. In fact, we have only weak indirect evidence that event horizons actually exist, and absolutely none that singularities form. Generally, when a physical theory and its mathematical expression leads to infinities, we change the theory - see renormalization.

You want to know about multiverses or what is beyond the event horizons of black holes? OK. I want to know about the color of the nail polish that the tortoise carrying the Universe on its back uses. Both are equally valid areas of inquiry. See for example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Proponents_and_skeptics> ... and links found there.

I should also mention that you know an article which talks about events prior to time zero (which I call the Creation Event) are metaphysics and/or religious. None of them, I repeat: none of them are based on known Physics. (Why? because our known physics breaks down at about 10E-44 seconds, extrapolating back to t=0 isn't possible.) Sure they make an interesting story, but they should be regarded in the same way as any fiction. You get to choose which you like and which you don't without any regard for ever having to justify your choices.

Much of human knowledge is about narratives which allow us to understand our place in the Universe. It is part of our human nature to be curious and seek out narratives that make sense of our world. The set of scientific narratives differ from this set because the goal is different. They doesn't require our understanding (for instance, Feynman said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (1965) Little has changed since then.), they only require our ability to apply them to make/verify observations.

Creating a satisfying narrative does not require the scientific method(s) be enforced. But ignore them at your peril.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: What constitutes "science" is a complex question in my mind.  So you can take, say, the equations of general relativity and show that you can extend and stitch together metrics past an event horizon to get an expanding spacetime within the interior.  Is that science? Physics? It's at least mathematics.  But is mathematics not science?  Does it have to be relevant to the "real world" to be science?  Which is what? What then of things that at first seem irrelevant but later become relevant?  What of studying things which aren't "real", but may enlighten and direct investigations of the "real"?  
> **username_4**: Actually it might be possible to preclude SOME theories about what goes on inside a black hole by probing it through dropping, say, positively charged particles into it, then seeming to what extent charge is conserved, how the field is distributed around the black hole (and its strength), etc.  Though I don't see us doing that soon...  

---

