<p>There exists various theories, some stating that <a href="https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe" rel="nofollow noreferrer">every black hole contains a new universe</a>... In fact as a once very dense object, our universe could also be seen as a black hole itself!</p>

<p>About what matter's enthropy becomes, Hawking proposes that it stays on the event horizon as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle" rel="nofollow noreferrer">holographic structure</a>, also compared to some <a href="http://www.livescience.com/53363-stephen-hawking-black-holes-have-hair.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">kind of electric hairs</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-25T23:28:01.910Z
I think this is as good an answer as any to this question.    I'll add one more, the "our universe is the event horizon of a 4d black hole" theory - which is kind of fun at least, mathematically, but it doesn't explain gravity or the 4 forces very well, it only explains expansion.   http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T06:50:09.940Z
Lot's of other related topics, e.g. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10921/is-our-universe-included-inside-a-black-hole
J. Chomel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-25T17:31:01.380Z
2017-04-25T17:31:01.380Z
Jika
<p>Let's say you have a rocket near a Schwarzschild black hole. Near the horizon, the thrust required to keep stationary goes to infinity; in this specific sense, the gravitational force becomes infinite at the horizon. If the rocket is hovering above the horizon, then the difference in gravitational forces becomes arbitrarily large near the horizon. This can tear it apart. <em>However</em>, an object falling into the black hole will also gain a velocity arbitrarily close to the speed of light (as measured by a stationary observer as it passes) as it gets closer to the horizon, meaning it will be length-contracted. It <em>shrinks</em> to zero size. As a result, the difference in 'gravitational force' across it is more complicated, and in fact remains finite.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Knowing that spaghettification is dependent on the size of the object, as well as the difference in gravity on both sides, a shrinking particle may eventually become so small that the steepness of the gravity well is no longer a problem.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A shrinking object tames the infinite 'gravitational force' and keeps the tidal forces finite. But the curvature is <em>already</em> defined in the limit of the size of the measurement probe tending to zero. (The static tidal forces correspond to six of the twenty independent curvature components, but let's not worry about that much.) So no, you can't 'get rid of curvature' by shrinking your particle/system/whatever. That's conceptually broken.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is this a known theory or idea, and where can I find papers on it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You would have to have a much clearer idea before that can be answered reasonably. I've skipped all the way to the end of your question because I haven't understood anything more of what you're trying to say.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-15T11:17:42.760Z
2014-05-15T11:17:42.760Z
Stan Liou
<p>When matter crosses the event horizon, it is easy to imagine that matter is torn apart into their individual components by tidal wave effects. Atoms would be ripped apart eventually.</p>

<p>At one time, the particles will fall so deep into the gravity well, that a single particle would be touching both sides of the gravity well at the same time. At that moment, I choose to assume that the particle particle core may be spaghettified, but externally it will appear to be shrinking.</p>

<p>Knowing that spaghettification is dependent on the size of the object, as well as the difference in gravity on both sides, a shrinking particle may eventually become so small that the steepness of the gravity well is no longer a problem.</p>

<p>The particle continues to shrink forever. Over time, gravity between all the particles that have shrunk, will again start to take effect - and I imagine that that is what happened in the big bang.</p>

<p>So the cosmic inflation, could just as well be particle shrinking, as a result of all particles in our universe being within the same black superhole.</p>

<p>Taking this idea, we could look at our own universe and I guess we would expect to see certain effects such as accelerating cosmic expansion, perhaps a cosmic background radiation and we would expect <em>our</em> universe to end as a cold, dead place.</p>

<p>Is this a known theory or idea, and where can I find papers on it?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-25T23:17:26.653Z
Your question needs to be cleaned up and I'm puzzled by the upvotes.    Yes the singularity at the center of a black hole may be infinitely small.  Without a model for quantum gravity it's impossible to say, but infinity small is one possibility.  In that sense, the object that fell in is no longer spagetified but it's part of the singularity.  That's true enough, though saying "touch both sides" is an odd way of saying it.  If it's infinitely small it has no sides.  If it's just very small, then, to the in-falling object, close too the other side and touching aren't the same.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-25T23:24:57.390Z
I think it's sloppy to think of cosmic inflation as objects shrinking and comparing that to objects shrinking while falling into a singularity, if I followed your argument right.    It might help if you started with what is known and applied one specific question to what is known, rather than post the entire theory into one question.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T13:46:10.167Z
I'm pretty sure many of the extremely well educated astro*/cosmo* people on this site will tell me that this is a stupid idea, either because it's just speculation - or because nothing suggests that it is true. I've asked a lot of questions and nothing so far suggests to me it's NOT a viable direction to explore, if I were to try to take a PhD Cosmology.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T13:52:11.057Z
"matter has lost entropy and has been reset"- Do you have anything supporting this statement?
Yashbhatt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T13:55:24.077Z
"As this matter continues to travel down the gravity well, the tidal effects of gravity will average out" — due to what? They just get stronger and stronger up to the singularity. Also, I don't think this is on-topic for this site because none of it is observable. [physics.se] would be a better forum.
Blackbody Blacklight
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T14:11:10.303Z
@BlackbodyBlacklight That's just something I intuitively believe - local forces working matter inside, will eventually become much more important the tidal forces emitted from the superhole. This as a result of the assumption that particles themselves become smaller after billions of years inside a black hole. Also; I'm talking about the possibility of our observable universe being inside a black superhole. I think the post belongs here.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T14:15:30.543Z
@frodeborli No, the closer you get to the singularity, the harder it rips you apart. Imaginative, but whatever you're thinking of is not a black hole.
Blackbody Blacklight
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T14:27:01.373Z
@BlackbodyBlacklight I'm not talking about when you approach. I'm talking about when you're in the absolute center of it. When your own center becomes one with the black hole center, tidal forces only compress you - they can't rip you apart.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-14T18:33:57.887Z
@BlackbodyBlacklight - exactly right.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-15T04:48:28.960Z
This whole thing is an incoherent mess that does not define its main parts properly, does not conceptually connect them, and does not even identify what problems the idea is supposed to solve. ... Yes, it is "*possible* to agree" that entropy "might" be "reset"; actually, that part is what happens in the classical description of black holes. But that's widely regarded as the major *problem* with the classical description of black holes!
Stan Liou
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-15T10:09:18.403Z
@StanLiou When you consider a gravity well that is infinitely small, at one time a single particle could touch both sides. At that point, to me - it sounds reasonable to assume that the particle itself shrinks. If the shrinking makes the particle so small, that it's size is too small to be "spaghettified", and it continues to shrink I think we could expect something similar to the big bang all over again. If we consider this scenario to be true, we should be able to watch our own universe and see for signs that this may be true.
frodeborli
<cosmological-inflation><supermassive-black-hole><cosmological-horizon>
A black "superhole" possibility?
frodeborli
# A black "superhole" possibility?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-14)

When matter crosses the event horizon, it is easy to imagine that matter is torn apart into their individual components by tidal wave effects. Atoms would be ripped apart eventually.

At one time, the particles will fall so deep into the gravity well, that a single particle would be touching both sides of the gravity well at the same time. At that moment, I choose to assume that the particle particle core may be spaghettified, but externally it will appear to be shrinking.

Knowing that spaghettification is dependent on the size of the object, as well as the difference in gravity on both sides, a shrinking particle may eventually become so small that the steepness of the gravity well is no longer a problem.

The particle continues to shrink forever. Over time, gravity between all the particles that have shrunk, will again start to take effect - and I imagine that that is what happened in the big bang.

So the cosmic inflation, could just as well be particle shrinking, as a result of all particles in our universe being within the same black superhole.

Taking this idea, we could look at our own universe and I guess we would expect to see certain effects such as accelerating cosmic expansion, perhaps a cosmic background radiation and we would expect *our* universe to end as a cold, dead place.

Is this a known theory or idea, and where can I find papers on it?

**Tags:** cosmological-inflation, supermassive-black-hole, cosmological-horizon
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm pretty sure many of the extremely well educated astro*/cosmo* people on this site will tell me that this is a stupid idea, either because it's just speculation - or because nothing suggests that it is true. I've asked a lot of questions and nothing so far suggests to me it's NOT a viable direction to explore, if I were to try to take a PhD Cosmology.  
> **username_2**: "matter has lost entropy and has been reset"- Do you have anything supporting this statement?  
> **username_3**: "As this matter continues to travel down the gravity well, the tidal effects of gravity will average out" — due to what? They just get stronger and stronger up to the singularity. Also, I don't think this is on-topic for this site because none of it is observable. [physics.se] would be a better forum.  
> **username_0**: @BlackbodyBlacklight That's just something I intuitively believe - local forces working matter inside, will eventually become much more important the tidal forces emitted from the superhole. This as a result of the assumption that particles themselves become smaller after billions of years inside a black hole. Also; I'm talking about the possibility of our observable universe being inside a black superhole. I think the post belongs here.  
> **username_3**: @frodeborli No, the closer you get to the singularity, the harder it rips you apart. Imaginative, but whatever you're thinking of is not a black hole.  
> **username_0**: @BlackbodyBlacklight I'm not talking about when you approach. I'm talking about when you're in the absolute center of it. When your own center becomes one with the black hole center, tidal forces only compress you - they can't rip you apart.  
> **username_4**: @BlackbodyBlacklight - exactly right.  
> **username_5**: This whole thing is an incoherent mess that does not define its main parts properly, does not conceptually connect them, and does not even identify what problems the idea is supposed to solve. ... Yes, it is "*possible* to agree" that entropy "might" be "reset"; actually, that part is what happens in the classical description of black holes. But that's widely regarded as the major *problem* with the classical description of black holes!  
> **username_0**: @StanLiou When you consider a gravity well that is infinitely small, at one time a single particle could touch both sides. At that point, to me - it sounds reasonable to assume that the particle itself shrinks. If the shrinking makes the particle so small, that it's size is too small to be "spaghettified", and it continues to shrink I think we could expect something similar to the big bang all over again. If we consider this scenario to be true, we should be able to watch our own universe and see for signs that this may be true.  
> **username_1**: Your question needs to be cleaned up and I'm puzzled by the upvotes.    Yes the singularity at the center of a black hole may be infinitely small.  Without a model for quantum gravity it's impossible to say, but infinity small is one possibility.  In that sense, the object that fell in is no longer spagetified but it's part of the singularity.  That's true enough, though saying "touch both sides" is an odd way of saying it.  If it's infinitely small it has no sides.  If it's just very small, then, to the in-falling object, close too the other side and touching aren't the same.  
> **username_1**: I think it's sloppy to think of cosmic inflation as objects shrinking and comparing that to objects shrinking while falling into a singularity, if I followed your argument right.    It might help if you started with what is known and applied one specific question to what is known, rather than post the entire theory into one question.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-04-25. Score: 3

There exists various theories, some stating that [every black hole contains a new universe](https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe)... In fact as a once very dense object, our universe could also be seen as a black hole itself!

About what matter's enthropy becomes, Hawking proposes that it stays on the event horizon as a [holographic structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle), also compared to some [kind of electric hairs](http://www.livescience.com/53363-stephen-hawking-black-holes-have-hair.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think this is as good an answer as any to this question.    I'll add one more, the "our universe is the event horizon of a 4d black hole" theory - which is kind of fun at least, mathematically, but it doesn't explain gravity or the 4 forces very well, it only explains expansion.   http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743  
> **username_7**: Lot's of other related topics, e.g. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10921/is-our-universe-included-inside-a-black-hole  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-05-15. Score: 3

Let's say you have a rocket near a Schwarzschild black hole. Near the horizon, the thrust required to keep stationary goes to infinity; in this specific sense, the gravitational force becomes infinite at the horizon. If the rocket is hovering above the horizon, then the difference in gravitational forces becomes arbitrarily large near the horizon. This can tear it apart. *However*, an object falling into the black hole will also gain a velocity arbitrarily close to the speed of light (as measured by a stationary observer as it passes) as it gets closer to the horizon, meaning it will be length-contracted. It *shrinks* to zero size. As a result, the difference in 'gravitational force' across it is more complicated, and in fact remains finite.

> Knowing that spaghettification is dependent on the size of the object, as well as the difference in gravity on both sides, a shrinking particle may eventually become so small that the steepness of the gravity well is no longer a problem.

A shrinking object tames the infinite 'gravitational force' and keeps the tidal forces finite. But the curvature is *already* defined in the limit of the size of the measurement probe tending to zero. (The static tidal forces correspond to six of the twenty independent curvature components, but let's not worry about that much.) So no, you can't 'get rid of curvature' by shrinking your particle/system/whatever. That's conceptually broken.

> Is this a known theory or idea, and where can I find papers on it?

You would have to have a much clearer idea before that can be answered reasonably. I've skipped all the way to the end of your question because I haven't understood anything more of what you're trying to say.


---

