Life's Little Mysteries

Could Earth be inside a black hole?

We see a. black hole illustration. It is surrounded by circles of blue and pink from its superheated accretion disc.
A black hole is so compact that nothing can escape its gravitational pull, not even light. (Image credit: Mark Garlick/Science Photo Library via Getty Images)

To Earthlings gazing into space, our solar system appears to be surrounded by billions of stars in the Milky Way. But if we look even further out, would it be possible to find evidence that we were in something even more fantastic, like a black hole? 

Black holes are places in the universe where gravity is so strong it distorts the time and space around it; once inside, nothing — not even light — can get out. 

In one scenario, a black hole could have swallowed Earth long ago. But if this were to happen, the gravitational pull would be catastrophic, said Gaurav Khanna, a black hole physicist at the University of Rhode Island. As Earth approached the black hole, time would slow. And depending on the size of the black hole, matter could be stretched out into spaghetti-like shapes. Even if the planet survived this "spaghettification," Earth would be bound for the dense and tiny singularity, where it would be incinerated by the pressure and temperature of an unfathomable gravitational force, Khanna told Live Science. 

So we can rule out the possibility that a black hole swallowed Earth at some point in its history; it would have been obliterated in a fraction of a second, Khanna said. 

Related: How does a black hole form?

But there's another way Earth might have ended up in the belly of a black hole: It could have formed there. 

"A black hole looks very much like the Big Bang in reverse. … The math looks similar," Khanna said. While a black hole collapses in on a tiny, highly dense point, the Big Bang exploded out of such a point. 

One theory posits that the Big Bang was first the singularity of a black hole in a larger parent universe. The dense center compressed and compressed, "until somehow it blows up and a baby universe is formed within the black hole," Khanna said. 

This theory, known as Schwarzschild cosmology, suggests that our universe now expands within a black hole that is part of a parent universe. In theory, this scenario would mean that universes can exist within universes, like Russian nesting dolls, and that traveling back through a black hole — a likely impossible feat, since light can't even make the reverse journey — would unlock unknown realms, Khanna said. 

However, this theory is unlikely to be proven; nothing can travel back across a black hole's event horizon

But if Earth is within a black hole, experts have some estimation of the space chasm's size. "If we are in a black hole it must be extremely big," said Scott Field, an associate professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Earth is not just tucked into a planet-size black hole or even one the size of the solar system. If that were the case, scientists would have noticed, Field told Live Science. There would be observable signatures of the black hole's spinning. Or, we'd see the subtle distortions caused by extreme gravity — like slowing time and stretching matter — as people moved within the black hole. 

If Earth existed in an Earth-size black hole, for instance, people would notice effects of these tidal forces, like spaghettification and slowed time, as they traveled from one spot on the globe to another, said Field, who works on gravitational modeling and simulation, including black hole collisions. 

So any black hole Earth called home must be enormous, universe-size and so vast that we can't travel far enough or fast enough to detect the gravitational distortions, Field said. 

From inside a black hole universe, Earthlings "would have no way of knowing there was another parent universe in existence," Khanna said. We'd be oblivious to it. So finding our universal predecessor would be tough, to say the least. Still, "it would be lovely" if this theory were true, he said.

Donavyn Coffey
Live Science Contributor

Donavyn Coffey is a Kentucky-based health and environment journalist reporting on healthcare, food systems and anything you can CRISPR. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Wired UK, Popular Science and Youth Today, among others. Donavyn was a Fulbright Fellow to Denmark where she studied  molecular nutrition and food policy.  She holds a bachelor's degree in biotechnology from the University of Kentucky and master's degrees in food technology from Aarhus University and journalism from New York University.

  • Bill52
    Could the earth be inside a black hole? No. Nothing can fall to inside a black hole. Time stops at the event horizon. If time stops, motion can not exist at the event horizon and the temperature is at absolute zero.

    Could the earth and everything that can be seen by the Hubble and Webb telescopes be extremely close to the event horizon of a black hole? Quite possibly.

    One of the consequences of being in a very strong gravitational field is that your measuring stick becomes very small (as measured by an "outside" observer). (Just ask the people who design clocks for our GPS satellites.) If your measuring stick is in the process of becoming infinitely small, then your immediate surroundings will appear to becoming very large - billions of light years large. (And give the illusion that not only are they are moving away from you, but that this motion is accelerating. )

    If you fall toward a black hole. as calculated by an outside observer (who thinks that the rules of a 3-D world still apply) your "energy" speed should be very close to the speed of light. If you assume an initial mass of one hydrogen atom and fall until you reach 99.999 . . . (for ~ 160 9's) % of the speed of light, when you divide the "M" in M*C^2 by sqrt(1 - V^2/C^2) this produces a new mass that is approximately equal to the visible mass of the known universe. (And of course the initial part of this fall would appear to happen very rapidly.)

    Your local measurement of the speed of light is still a smidgen under 300,000 km/s. (It's the one constant you can trust.) The wavelength of light emitted by "distant" objects will appear to grow larger as your measuring stick shrinks. Hence the light from "distant" objects will be appear to redshift.

    The temperature at the event horizon as stated earlier is at absolute zero. If you are very close to the event horizon, then the temperature of your background radiation would be very close to absolute zero - for example 2.725 K and slowly falling.

    Perhaps we have been in a free fall for 13.7 +/- billion years (as measured by our clocks), and destined to continue free falling forever. Finally, if you are measuring your free fall, it's a one-way trip.
    Reply
  • Johnnyreddogg
    Wow,
    Talk about theoretical! No one really knows what a black hole is anyway. Everything is theoretical! We have a certain amount of observation ability, and that's about it. More than likely black holes are designed to clean up the universe and produce or recycle matter. Hence the continuation of universal creation. All physics are local, And the only way to really know what's going on, is to see it, to go there. And that's way beyond our capabilities.

    When you see what we call a black hole sailing through the universe, dragging newly formed stars and such, that tells you that black holes are about creating, and, about recycling matter. Also, there would have to be a direct correlation between dark matter and visible matter. The creation process of stars, solar systems, galaxies, are obviously connected to black holes. How they exactly function, who knows.

    Look at the subduction zones on Earth, one continental plate will subduct under another, that land or crust will be recycled into magma. But that's not the only thing, the magma will rise up eventually and create new land. Same way black holes might suck up dark matter, and create visible matter. It would be an endless creation mill for an expanding universe.
    Reply
  • Zachap85
    admin said:
    And for that matter, could our universe be inside a black hole?

    Could Earth be inside a black hole? : Read more
    I believe the universe itself it a hyper expansion of a black hole. It's more than likely oval of its retention and bears a spherical center we call the "observable universe". Outside of this center the light starts to bend of the oval curviture and we can't see further. Logically, a black hole is just light objecting/counter objecting itself. I believe that outside of the universe, there is a infinite and eternal body of light that we are within.
    Reply
  • Johnnyreddogg
    Zach,
    Interesting theorem, I guess we can kind of throw the string theory in there. Although it seems that the string theory has lost favor recently.

    On this site, or, one of the related sites, it was determined by the James Web, that there was no point of a big bang, that everything appeared all at once! Now, that adds a whole new flavor to the whole physics thing and being inside of a black hole wouldn't it? I really think that people come up with some of these ideas because they're unhappy with their reality. So they would like to invent a reason why their reality sucks.

    I think, if we look at the phrase willful delusion or willfully ignorant, we can throw that out there for those individuals that really come up with some far-fetched idea that maybe we're all in a computer program? And that somehow it can be rectified.

    A person's life is what they make it, wisdom, discernment, and logical conclusions, can help with how you form your life, and a good helping of moral standard. Solomon, King David's son, said that there is nothing new under the sun. (That's in Ecclesiastes) And that there is a time for everything. If he were reading some of these theoretical hypotheses, he might have changed his mind, lol! And by you, I mean, everyone!
    Reply
  • Zachap85
    Johnnyreddogg said:
    Zach,
    Interesting theorem, I guess we can kind of throw the string theory in there. Although it seems that the string theory has lost favor recently.

    On this site, or, one of the related sites, it was determined by the James Web, that there was no point of a big bang, that everything appeared all at once! Now, that adds a whole new flavor to the whole physics thing and being inside of a black hole wouldn't it? I really think that people come up with some of these ideas because they're unhappy with their reality. So they would like to invent a reason why their reality sucks.

    I think, if we look at the phrase willful delusion or willfully ignorant, we can throw that out there for those individuals that really come up with some far-fetched idea that maybe we're all in a computer program? And that somehow it can be rectified.

    A person's life is what they make it, wisdom, discernment, and logical conclusions, can help with how you form your life, and a good helping of moral standard. Solomon, King David's son, said that there is nothing new under the sun. (That's in Ecclesiastes) And that there is a time for everything. If he were reading some of these theoretical hypotheses, he might have changed his mind, lol! And by you, I mean, everyone!
    I see you found the eye of Ra. I believe that through remote viewing he formed the first "image" of everything in the universe before completion of the "great architecture". I swear, man, I believe existence itself started from a spark of electricity that formed a silver ball in its remnant. It just grows from there, to expansion into a iron orb with remnant once more reforming the silver sphere within it. It's all in and out development to me, until it reaches the climax of sounding a supernova against the woke light we are "within". It took me hours to imagine every possible degree of development but this seems to be to most logical to me in a type of creationism.
    Reply
  • Johnnyreddogg
    Zach,

    Very interesting viewpoint my brother. I don't know if the ancient Egyptians actually had a grasp on creation, but, they weren't stupid either. The problem that I see with the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans, they all used philosophy to make their points. Philosophical opinions, and all of the philosophical houses that existed during those civilizations prime influence, really worked against each other in many ways. And then, we had other civilizations adopting deities and philosophies from the previous.

    Rationality is more than someone's perspective, we have to observe as much as we can and actually come up with a rational idea or belief on what why or how.

    As I recall, I believe the Babylonians believed that the Earth was flat, and it rested on the back of four elephants which stood on the back of a giant tortoise. And it wasn't so far back in time where they thought that the stars were actually stuck in a mesh around the centric Earth. I'm all for being progressive, but, I don't think I would be interested in going backwards. I don't want to go back into that stars in a mesh deading around the centric Earth. And the black hole issue being inside of one, seems eerily similar to that mesh netting holding stars. And, there are so many others going back to the flat earth issue, and I can't even fathom people believing the earth is flat. Not in this day and age. The sad thing is, if people can't prove their theories, they just throw water on truth and science. Everything is fake. How many times have we heard fake news? If you don't like it it must be fake. I don't think that's a good way to come to any sort of conclusion or agreement, philosophically, scientifically, theocratically, or intellectually.

    John
    Reply
  • Fisher
    Very interesting article, but as a non-English speaking reader, I did not understand the meaning of the next sentence.

    So any black hole Earth called home must be enormous, universe-size and so vast that we can't travel far enough or fast enough to detect the gravitational distortions, Field said.

    I assume this means "If it is a planet-sized or solar-system-sized black hole, its effects are immediately apparent, so the fact that it is not means that it is a very massive black hole." is this correct?
    Reply
  • njones0100
    This is as much fantasy as science for the time being, but that's all we have at the edge of our understanding. It's an interesting thought.

    Is it possible? Maybe? Who knows? Cool idea. Maybe an alternative to the big bounce? Instead of higher dimensional branes bumping into each other, every exploding star that collapses on itself and gives birth to a black hole is the birth of a new universe? New dimensions folding in the fabric of time and space?

    Doesn't seem too outlandish, given how weird physics already is. Anyone who immediately dismisses this with a "no obviously not" doesn't appreciate how much we don't know.
    Reply
  • njones0100
    Fisher said:
    Very interesting article, but as a non-English speaking reader, I did not understand the meaning of the next sentence.

    So any black hole Earth called home must be enormous, universe-size and so vast that we can't travel far enough or fast enough to detect the gravitational distortions, Field said.

    I assume this means "If it is a planet-sized or solar-system-sized black hole, its effects are immediately apparent, so the fact that it is not means that it is a very massive black hole." is this correct?
    As a native English speaker, it's still confusing. I don't know why they singled out Earth in the headline. They're contemplating the possibility that our entire expanding universe is inside a black hole.
    Reply
  • Johnnyreddogg
    Fisher said:
    Very interesting article, but as a non-English speaking reader, I did not understand the meaning of the next sentence.

    So any black hole Earth called home must be enormous, universe-size and so vast that we can't travel far enough or fast enough to detect the gravitational distortions, Field said.

    I assume this means "If it is a planet-sized or solar-system-sized black hole, its effects are immediately apparent, so the fact that it is not means that it is a very massive black hole." is this correct?
    Fisher,

    This would all be theoretical physics, and there are plenty of theoretical physicists out there. Tyson, and Kaku are two that come to mind, and they riff all the time about physics. Kaku is the one that said all physics are local. That means one set of the laws of physics in this region of space, and another set of laws of physics and another region of space.

    Remember a while back, quite a while back, we were told that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and will soon start to contract back to the original point of the big bang. Basically annihilating everything and starting over again. Then later on, we've discovered that the universe is rapidly expanding and increasing the speed of that expansion. Now to me, that doesn't sound like being inside of any sort of black hole whatsoever. The gravity created inside of a black hole of that size would be tremendous, I don't think it would even remotely allow expansion. This might have been a better theory before they realized the universe was expanding and increasing that expansion exponentially.

    So, either what we know about black holes is really nothing, or, black holes are something different than we thought. That's the thing about theoretical physics, there's a lot of guesstimations and hypothetical opinions. And, it's just that, hypothetical theorems. Everyone wants to be the next Einstein, and the drive to be immortalized in history has everyone throwing poop at the wall to see if anything will stick. No matter how untenable a theory is, that's the whole thing behind a theory, anything is possible.

    John
    Reply