Re: [spr] Re: Omega ~ 1

28-NOV-2003


In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phillip Helbig wrote:

"As Ted Bunn pointed out in a similar thread here a while back, the 
statement "the universe is a black hole" doesn't really have much 
meaning.  As for the numbers, again as Ted pointed out it's just our old 
friend dimensional analysis at work.  We would expect things like G and 
c to play a role in a black hole or in cosmology (as opposed, say to the 
charge of the electron), so in either case obvious combinations of these 
constants will give the interesting quantities to within a factor of a 
few."

Should I not trust dimensional analysis?  That seems odd.  That perhaps 
I should not trust my own calculations in the implementation of these 
analyses is more sensible.  However, while the conjecture may ultimately 
fail, it is precisely because the dimensional analysis does provide such 
compelling circumstantial evidence, that I'm posing the question.  Had 
I, in this case, been forced to a total mass estimate that was 
completely inconsistent with what we know from observations, then my 
solution would certainly be suspect; but because I entered a reasonable 
contemporary estimate of 7% detectable, 23% CDM and 70% dark energy, 
i.e.

M_total = (14.28.. x ~10^25) x (normalized solar mass ~ O(10^27) kg),

I was quite surprised, in fact, to find that the age computed was in 
such good agreement with contemporary estimates.  Coincidence?  I don't 
know, that's why I'm submitting the argument, in the hopes of finding 
its flaws.  I suppose an alternative mass estimate would be along the 
lines of Einstein's derivation,

M_total = (4pi^2(R) / r) ~ 3.24 * 10^55, r = (2G) / c^2,

and p is the "mean density of distribution," for which I find

p = (2 / rR^2) ~ 2.2* 10^-27.

Here, R = r^-1, so rR = 1.

Admittedly, what I've presented thus far are order of magnitude 
estimates; but the evidence on the face of it, suggests (to me) that the 
observable universe *could* be a black hole.  Since I can find no more 
compelling alternative at the moment (with all due respect for Ted 
Bunn's opinions on the matter), I make the conjecture.

At this stage then, the next question seems to be: what evidence is 
there that the universe is *not* a black hole?  Or more directly, what 
laws of physics that we understand, would be violated under the 
conditions of such a proposition?

best,

Mark Jonathan Horn