Black hole cosmology suggests that the Milky Way and every other observable galaxy in our universe is contained within a black hole that formed in another, much larger, universe.
The theory challenges many fundamental models of the cosmos, including the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
It also provides the possibility that black holes within our own universe may be the boundaries to other universes, opening up a potential scenario for a multiverse.
Mine blown 🤯
Last few paragraphs…
Shamir noted that an alternative explanation for why most of the galaxies in the study rotate clockwise is that the Milky Way’s rotational velocity is having an impact on the measurements.
“If that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe,” said Shamir.
"The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.”
That’s leading me to think that that’s actually the more probable explanation, and the black hole idea comes in a distant second in terms of probability, but is much more attention grabbing/sensational/click-baity.
The black hole idea is actually weirdly solid, its a case of the maths says we definetaly should be but observation and just intuition says its crazy. If you consider the event horizon to be the surface of a volume, black holes get less dense as their radius increases, you can have a black hole with the same density as rock, water, air, even the miniscule density of the gas in a vacuum, so long as teh black hole is large enough. The average density of the observable universe is higher than the density of a black hole the size of the observable universe so technically we should be in one.
Technically this doesn’t have to affect anything, larger black holes can have gentler gravity gradients and nothing in physics actually demands all the mass inside be concentrated at a miniscule central point, it just works out that way for black holes of the size we’ve seen so far. So the entire universe could be a black hole (assuming its finite) with the event horizon just being functionally inacessable and the black hole so large that internal conditions aren’t really influenced in any way.
Surely at some point it stops being useful to apply the same terminology to such vastly different concepts. If the universe is a black hole and Sagittarius A* is a black hole then “black hole” doesn’t communicate anything effectively outside of extremely niche astrophysics conversations.
The mass of the visible universe is apparently enough to make a black hole with an event horizon ten times larger than the visible universe’s. I don’t understand how that hasn’t happened already, but apparently it just doesn’t look like it’s happened (“unless…”).
It could totally have happened already and we just don’t notice, though there’s kind of a critical size where a black hole just gets infinitely big as adsorbing a stray hydrogen atom in the vacuum of space increases its radius enough to encompass multiple new hydrogen atoms and the whole thing just expands to encompass the entire universe. Kind of when everything is a black hole then nothing is a black hole sorta situation.
deleted by creator
I recommend critically reading the paper. It is quite accessible to those with college-level science background.
Most importantly, it is still highly controversial whether this galaxy rotation direction bias actually exists. If you look at section 4 of the paper, the author is debating against different groups that did similar surveys and found no bias. Someone needs to actually work through this author’s methodology as well as those of other groups and figure out what is going on.
If there is indeed a bias, that is super exciting! An anisotropic universe due to being in a black hole would be a very cool explanation. But given the ongoing debate, a general-audience publication like Independent presenting this rotation bias as a given fact is very poor journalism.
Oh sure but when I say this I’m “too high” and need to “quit smoking.” I been told y’all.
if you can call that living
I honestly appreciate that we don’t understand the universe. Theories keep evolving and that’s what science should look like. If we can’t question “established” scientific theories, we have abandoned the scientific method. Strong theories hold up. Like the theory of gravity, although even there I’m not convinced we have a complete understanding. Good answers are good, but who knows what we might be capable of if we keep pushing for more.
I’ve kinda thought that were some n-dimension universe getting sucked into an n-dimension black hole, and what happens as that universe crosses the event horizon is the big bang, the arrow of time. And all of the matter and forces that have them appearing to interact is just some beautiful n-dimension spaghettification.
The universe isn’t expanding; all mafter within it is shrinking, being crushed. all matter appears to be accelerating further and further away because, well, it is. From our perspective.
Think of our whole universe as the most epic allegory of the cave possible.
I’ll go back to ripping my bong now.
If this is true, do you think time exists outside the outer black hole? In the least, I might imagine it’s moving very differently than our interior universe.
Idk I’ve thought about it and it’s like, if time is created by the passage into the event horizon and it’s an artifact of the n-dimension universe it can both imply that this n-dimension universe doesn’t have “time” as we know it and our experience of it is, again, artifactual. However, the “movement” of this universe toward a n-dimension black hole kind of implies time, at least in the sense that we understand it (physical state changes of matter. It was there, now it’s here! How’d it happen? Time!)
So… “Yes” but I would wager if my stoner theory holds gravity (pun intended) that whatever “time” exists in a parent n-dimension universe is not the same as time as we understand it? But maybe it is! Idk. Someone ask Neil degrasse Tyson why I’m wrong. And dont let him fool you that my model wouldn’t account for red and blue shifts as our little matter-islands shrink and “accelerate away” from one another. It do! 🙂
Also fun to ponder with my silly stoner model here is that… Well… There is a supermassive black hole at the center of most galaxies… Like it’s some sort of iterative and exponentiating recursive process? 😵💫
“Time” exists in any reality that isn’t static, it’s simply the concept of being with any measureable change. Doesn’t have to be linear or consistent but if there’s two quarks then there’s time.
It does seem somewhat likely that the flow of time would be different if other universes exist. Hard to apply our physical laws to guesses entirely outside observable reality.
Dude
The Frensh-German TV-Channel Arte published a Documentary about the theorem, that we are probably living in a black hole. According to them its based on the work of Nikodem Poplawski (mathematician and physicist). It was a kinda nice theory and seemed appealing. But Im no scientist and I have no idea about higher Math and Physics. Sadly, on the German Arte-TV-Site the video is not avaible anymore. (According to German Law public-TV-Channels arent allowed to keep their Videos up online unlimited) https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/101940-002-A/leben-wir-in-einem-schwarzen-loch/
But I assume there are other sources, probably even in other languages.
Hole
There’s debate on the existence of singularities and certain shapes of the universe can give the impression of accelerating expansion
Well, they still have a mass (and some form of “size”) iirc, that can expand as they absorb things
Chat is this real?
the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe
I always thought this was the consensus, but turns out, it was just as far back as we can go where physics as we know it work. Not everyone claimed that nothing existed before.
nothing existed before
Thing is that there’s no “before”, because time itself started with the big bang. The questions to ask are: is there anything other than our universe, and does that even matter? If nothing can get in or out of our universe, then there’s no way to prove the existence of anything outside of it and there’s zero impact one way or another.
Time as we know it started. That doesn’t mean time as we don’t know it wasn’t around.
I saw some science stuff on YouTube the other day that explained that the expansion of the universe seems to have started before the big bang. Also that the expansion is what caused particles to come into existence from nothing and thus creating the big bang.
Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHdUFPAK7f0
Anyway, you’re right that whatever was before or outside the universe is irrelevant to us. However, if we can get closer to understanding as much of the process as possible, it might still pave the way for something that we can use today.
“Thing is that there’s no “before”, because time itself started with the big bang.”
Good to know modern science is catching up to fourth century theology:
“There was therefore never any time when you had not made anything, because you made time itself.”
Saint Augustine posited in “Confessions” that before the Universe was created there was no time. Also, that the Universe was not made in any “place” because no place existed before the Universe existed(space is also created with the Universe).
For exact argumentation you can refer to the text, I suppose(chapter XI). I just think it is fascinating that conceptual tools and concepts developed by theologians and philosophers more than 1500 years ago are still incredibly useful.
For exact argumentation you can refer to the text, I suppose(chapter XI). I just think it is fascinating that conceptual tools and concepts developed by theologians and philosophers more than 1500 years ago are still incredibly useful.
They’re not even a little bit useful. Using tautilogical arguments like this are actually a disservice to science, and anti-thetical to the scientific method.
I fail to see how this is tautological.
How is that antithetical to the scientific method? Science uses routinely uses manufactured conceptual instruments, theoretical objects and even applies mundane concepts in a metaphorical way. Science is a struggle to create theoretical frameworks that explain observations, and this is why in times of crisis science often turns to philosophy, since old frameworks might not be doing it anymore and philosophy provides new ones, as it happened with the crisis of classical mechanics, for example. This is a relevant example because it relates to the issues of space being absolute or relative and time as well.
If i have to explain to you why this is not helpful to science, I’m not sure you’d be convinced regardless of what I have to say.
much larger universe than this? are you fucking kidding? we might just as well die then.
Or you might just as well live given the absurdity of it all.
You both make excellent points!
Pulls deeply on the cigarette, stomps it out and then waves the pistol’s barrel towards a dark corner of the room.
“Now get into the box…”
eh why not …
we might just as well die
Because it’s not what you expected?
I can assure you, whatever you expected is just as strange and absurd as this.Let me put this in another way:
To think that time might have not existed, then started up at some point, breaks my brain.
To think that time might go on for infinity in the past, with no starting point, also breaks my brain.No because it is just so crushingly huge. I mean maybe humanity could understand and even partially explore the universe at some point. But trying to understand a universe within a universe, fuck that. Whose to say it is not a sequence of universes?
Bruh I’m just trying to get through the workday I don’t need this on my mind!
black holes all the way down?
Explains the warped timeline
