This coincidence is rather striking and has been the subject of much speculation, though nobody has been able to make anything useful come out of it. If this theory manages to predict this relation within the created universe, that would be evidence for the theory.
If you assume that the next approximation to Newton's gravity equations are similar to Maxwell's equations (thereby introducing a secondary field analogous to B, the magnetic field) then you can do back of the envelope calculations that get you interesting results including this one - i.e. our universe's radius is of the order of Schwarzchild's radius of a black hole of the mass we estimate, together with the acceleration equivalences under that condition. By that I mean - the two situations of you accelerating w.r.t the rest of the universe and the rest of the universe accelerating w.r.t. to you are physically indistinguishable. You can get that for rotation (in which case the B analog gives you Coriolis force) and for linear acceleration as well. I think in these limiting calculations you get some constant factors wrong (like the Newtonian escape velocity calculation) but the order turns out ok.
This "analog of B" is called the "gravitomagnetic field" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism) and NASA's GP-A and GP-B probes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B) are for measuring this effect near earth.
Also note that if there are universes inside black-holes in our own universe, they have much less mass to play with.
The best this theory (that, unless it can be tested, may not deserve to be called one) has going for it is that the math is right. And since I haven't seen it, I can't say that either.
National Geographic is not the best source for news in Physics or Cosmology.
Lee Smolin made an ingenious observation: if that's so, and if it happens that in the "daughter" universe the constants of nature are slightly (and variably) different from those in the "parent", then we have exactly the setup required for Darwinian evolution, and we should expect universes to be selected for black hole fecundity. (And if that's correlated with, e.g., the viability of stars, then perhaps it explains "fine tuning", in so far as that actually exists.) Smolin wrote a book about this, called "The life of the cosmos", but I haven't read it so can't recommend or disrecommend it.
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
Anyways I always thought that parallel universes could not interact with each other (since, if I understand correctly, the parallel universes in the many worlds theory cannot interact with each other) so describing the black holes as containing another universe seems misleading.
The many worlds theory and its parallel universes is unrelated to this, so its rule of no interaction does no apply.
But what if it is the best way of describing it? How else could you explain it in the event we discover that we can keep on finding smaller and smaller particles?
> The many worlds theory and its parallel universes is unrelated to this, so its rule of no interaction does no apply.
Yea, but I like to think of all these universes as still part of our universe, since we would be able to interact with them.
I was wondering, If the universe is our only point of reference, and everything in it is (at a whole) rotating at the same speed and in the same direction, how we could tell?
Or would it be too slow for us to notice?
So, if a universe is big enough for black holes, it might have black holes in it, but if it isn't, it's just a regular-old stars and planets universe. And then, any black hole it might have has a reduced universe inside it.
Ontology recapitulates tautology.
Perhaps the life (or death) of a black hole varies, dependent on the available matter for the black hole to consume. A black hole that never reaches that critical amount of mass required to tear through into a new dimension (or whatever the terminology for describing the event is) is doomed to dissipate via Hawkins Radiation, however a black hole that consumes enough matter to tear such a hole, ends up disappearing anyway, as it diffuses into the newly created universe?
I have no idea, nor am I qualified in any way to have an opinion. I did read 'A Brief History of Time' once though!
The total charge charge is probably very close to zero anyway. Total impulse can be made zero by choosing a suitable coordinate system. And so on for the other conserved properties.
Also, any matter falling into a black hole should appear in the other universe. It would be an interesting to have new mass/energy appearing in our universe.