5 ms·
This mindfuck struck me too. Could a physicist speak to this? Is a black-hole universe a theoretical possibility because it’s a valid solution, say, of the Eins
by ioblomov 3y ago
This mindfuck struck me too. Could a physicist speak to this? Is a black-hole universe a theoretical possibility because it’s a valid solution, say, of the Einstein field equations? Or is it a possibility simply because it’s not falsifiable?
- d1sxeyes 3y agoI don’t think it’s possible to say. Our current definitions of spacetime is limited to what is in the observable universe. What’s on the other side could be a whole different universe with similar spacetime. Or it could be an infinite void. Or it could literally not exist. Or it could be a vast sea of cream cheese. We don’t know, and according to our current understanding of physics, it is impossible for us to ever know. Edit: not a physicist by the way, would also love someone who actually knows what they’re talking about to butt in.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoMost physicists would view this as pointless debate. Since it doesn't make predictions, it's not really even a theory. It's not even wrong.
- atombender 3y agoI believe Penrose and Hawking both like this idea, or rather the idea that black holes spawned "baby universes" [1]. Something is falsifiable if you can think up some empirical test that would refute it. That test doesn't need to be feasible. In the case of black hole universes, such a theory may be falsifiable, but we don't know enough about the composition of black holes to even formulate the tests. I'm not a physicist, but my impression is that falsifiability is less important to physics than the ability for a hypothesis to predict and explain observed phenomena. [1] https://www.salon.com/2020/10/18/why-physics-nobelist-roger-penrose-believes-there-are-black-holes-left-over-from-previous-universes/ https://www.salon.com/2020/10/18/why-physics-nobelist-roger-...