Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Black Hole?

Okay So,
I just realised while researching Black Holes on Wikipedia.
That simulations of black holes look identical to an eye.
I would like to anybody that might know, the pupil of an eye, is it an absence of light.
Becase on Black Holes - Wikipedia and beyond there, on the Einstein online website, it says that in a black hole, the gravitational pull of a blackhole is so great, not even light can escape it, even light itself is pulled in to a black hole.
So i was wondering, Is the center of an eye an absence of light, And also, does this mean, that in a blackhole, it is pitch-black, BUT is not empty.
Which leads me on to the question, do parallel universes exist?
And if the answer to that is yes, is it naive and idiotic to suggest that a blackhole is the doorway to parallel universes? or possibly, blackholes are wormholes, to the other sides of time and space.

Stuart Lambert
'Sixteen years of age, But damn i have a brain.'

The pupil of the eye is simply a hole surrounded by a ring of muscle, the iris. The iris constricts or relaxes in response mainly to available light but also to some degree as part of emotion responses. This controls the amount of light reaching the retina.

The inside of a black hole is not black. The reason that we cannot directly observe a black hole is that light cannot travel beyond a certain radius from the singularity - the reason being that, although the photons in the black hole follow a 'straight line' through space, space within the black hole is curved back on itself due to the extreme concentration of mass.

Whilst no one knows if parallel universes exist, some physicists such as David Deutsch (Home page http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html) are convinced that they do.

According to what I've read (sorry, no references to hand), it's not naive to suggest that a blackhole may be linked to parallel universes in some unique way. But in any case, once within the event horizon, spaghettification would put an end to any mission, which would ultimately be reduced to a point of infinite density, becoming one with the singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

The web is an excellent source of information on wormholes, but beware - there are a good many dreamers who are unable distinguish fact from fiction. Check out the source of an article. If it's from a highly regarded physicist then it's probably well worth reading.

Rede,
I got a 404 error on that first link of yours. Could you maybe fix it or find another link?

Amaranth

Yes, I've checked the links below and they're OK (currently).

Old site:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html

New site:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/

David Deutsch’s Many Worlds:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html

If we consider, the Universe can be formed by interior of black hole sitting inside of some higher Universe generation, then we can imagine the parallel Universe as another black hole near it.

4REAL;

Your eyes can detect light and therefore form an image of an object in two ways; having light from a source beamed directly into your eyes and/or having light, reflected from an object, directly into your eyes. We see the sun when its light is beamed directly into our eyes. We see the moon when it reflects sunlight directly into our eyes. A beam of light that travels across our field of vision is not detected. (Invisible)

We "see" light only because it reacts with our eyes which send data to our brain which is used to produce an "image". An image is not a product of light but of our brain. Images can also be produced by other data such as sound and touch. A blind man can image by feeling the shape of an object. A bat can image by processing reflected sound. No matter how, an image is the product of the brain.

Inside the event horizon of a black hole, our eyes and brains cannot exist. They would be compressed to near nothingness. The concept of images, light, dark, color, et., would become meaningless.

You are correct in that the black hole is not empty. Nothing we know of is so densly packed. No room to dance.

The pupil of an eye is, in effect, an adjustable hole in the iris. An aperture similar to the aperture of a camera. Light is reflected from the iris but not the hole, making it appear dark relative to the iris.

And no, it is far from idiotic to speculate that black holes may be entryways to some other dimension. Many physicists, of stature, have suggested such.

Nice to see a sixteen year old with a brain asking intelligent questions here. Hope you hang around.

Black hole and Big bang.
1.
A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the
gravitational field is so powerful that nothing can escape.
2.
Hawking Radiation theorizes that black holes do not,
in fact, absorb all matter absolutely; they give off some
return matter.
3.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”

The reason of this unity is gravitational force.
4.
How does this “single point” created if the matter
can escape from any strong gravitational force?
==========..
#
Dark energy may be vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php

#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

============ . .

Yes, but what point are you making?

The first particles would have come into existence only after the Big Bang event.
As a matter of interest, is there any good reason why you keep revising the time of the Big Bang back to 20bya?

Maybe the singularity was produced by colliding branes. Maybe not. Whatever, there doesn't appear to be a viable theory suggesting that gravity was responsible for the singularity. It would have been, had a Big Crunch occurred, but I think that theory is defunct (unless it's back in favour again!). Evidently, the rate of expansion of space was sufficient to overcome the force of gravity and, if the inflation theory is correct, it was given a tremendous boost by negative gravity.