6 ms·

When you run the Schwarzschild radius calculation for the universe (relating mass of a black hole to event horizon radius) you get a prediction that's close eno

When you run the Schwarzschild radius calculation for the universe (relating mass of a black hole to event horizon radius) you get a prediction that's close enough to the size of the universe and it's mass, so to me that's pretty good evidence our universe is an event horizon. This means all 3D points in our space are on the horizon itself, and the time dimension is the normal vector to that "surface" (3D manifold). It explains why space is expanding, because Event Horizons always only expand (excluding considering Hawking evaporation of course, which happens too slowly to affect things)

thrance 2y ago
Is there any experimental evidence for this model, does it actually lead to any verifiable predictions?
- quantadev 2y ago
  There's more evidence for this Black Hole theory than there is for the Big Bang, but not it's not like there's any laboratory experiment that can be done afaik. It's all about measuring things in astronomy. Big Bang theory at this point is hilariously wrong, and doesn't fit much evidence nowadays. Big Bang is disproven.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Ok, by that comment you told me everything I wanted to know: you're pulling this out of thin air. Please provide sources whenever you make insane claims like "Big Bang is disproven". Because it's not [1]. Also you told me there's "more evidence for this Black Hole theory than there is for the Big Bang", so please link to it, that I might examine it and maybe change my mind. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evide...
    - quantadev 2y ago
      The Big Bang is disproven because we see fully formed galaxies when we look out at the edge of the universe using James Webb Telescope. That's conclusive proof it's wrong.
      - drdeca 2y ago
        “edge of the universe”? What?
        quantadev 2y ago
        In the context of the Big Bang theory, the 'edge' is at the distance away from us at which seeing any light from that distance would have to mean that light started traveling "before" the big bang, which is considered impossible, due to constant speed of light and hubble expansion.
rosseitsa 2y ago
Really curious, how do you quantify "close" in such numeric ranges? Quick calculations say that ratio is 1.71:1 (https://rentry.co/k85wy696 https://rentry.co/k85wy696). I guess given the scale of the numbers having such a low ratio is interesting. But my intuition says that in physics constants are scattered in a sort of logarithmic way, i.e. the orders of magnitude are uniformly scattered in some range. So small ratios between such constants not impossibly rare. I may be full of shit though!
- quantadev 2y ago
  I admit I haven't run the calculation myself, nor even asked OpenAI (or other AI, which are almost certainly capable of doing it), but I heard a presentation say the number is off by a factor of 3. To me '3' is best described as "no where near an order of magnitude". Since there's no way we're measuring the radius of the universe nor the mass in it accurately, I think being off by only a factor of 3 is astoundingly "accurate". When you're dealing with many many orders of magnitude like these astronomically large numbers, and you end up being only off by 3x that's actually pretty close. Too close to be an accident. If the theory was "wrong" it would be off by many orders of magnitude.
antonvs 2y ago
Sean Carroll discusses this in "The Universe is not a Black Hole": https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-uni... Relevant quote: > "Still, some folks will stubbornly insist, there has to be something deep and interesting about the fact that the radius of the observable universe is comparable to the Schwarzschild radius of an equally-sized black hole. And there is! It means the universe is spatially flat."
- quantadev 2y ago
  Sean Carroll is not really an unbiased party. He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory, so he's going to simply disagree with anything else, and he's going to disagree with anything that's not a "standard" theory. He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.
  - antonvs 2y ago
    > He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not aware of Carroll having "his own theory" that he's "staked his entire reputation on." In any case, he's explained his position, even in the quote I provided. He's simply describing what general relativity says about this. If you have some issue with it, you can respond on technical grounds, without needing to resort to ad hominem. > He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. Big Bang is not "disproven" - the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang is still known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," and nothing has replaced it as a consensus among mainstream scientists. > There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct. The issue of galaxy ages has a number of reasonable explanations in the context of Lambda-CDM. One of them could simply have to do with age estimates, which is an area that suffers from limited observational data that's difficult to interpret. Recent work on the Hubble tension may help resolve that, e.g.: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-suggests-our-model-universe-may-hold-after-all https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-sugg... The idea that galaxy ages "disproves" Big Bang theory is at best, a misunderstanding of pop science hype, and at worst pseudoscience. That's not how science works, especially in cosmology where most evidence is very indirect and subject to interpretation.

thrance 2y ago

Is there any experimental evidence for this model, does it actually lead to any verifiable predictions?

quantadev 2y ago
There's more evidence for this Black Hole theory than there is for the Big Bang, but not it's not like there's any laboratory experiment that can be done afaik. It's all about measuring things in astronomy. Big Bang theory at this point is hilariously wrong, and doesn't fit much evidence nowadays. Big Bang is disproven.
- thrance 2y ago
  Ok, by that comment you told me everything I wanted to know: you're pulling this out of thin air. Please provide sources whenever you make insane claims like "Big Bang is disproven". Because it's not [1]. Also you told me there's "more evidence for this Black Hole theory than there is for the Big Bang", so please link to it, that I might examine it and maybe change my mind. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evide...
  - quantadev 2y ago
    The Big Bang is disproven because we see fully formed galaxies when we look out at the edge of the universe using James Webb Telescope. That's conclusive proof it's wrong.
    - drdeca 2y ago
      “edge of the universe”? What?
      - quantadev 2y ago
        In the context of the Big Bang theory, the 'edge' is at the distance away from us at which seeing any light from that distance would have to mean that light started traveling "before" the big bang, which is considered impossible, due to constant speed of light and hubble expansion.

rosseitsa 2y ago

Really curious, how do you quantify "close" in such numeric ranges? Quick calculations say that ratio is 1.71:1 (https://rentry.co/k85wy696 https://rentry.co/k85wy696). I guess given the scale of the numbers having such a low ratio is interesting. But my intuition says that in physics constants are scattered in a sort of logarithmic way, i.e. the orders of magnitude are uniformly scattered in some range. So small ratios between such constants not impossibly rare. I may be full of shit though!

quantadev 2y ago
I admit I haven't run the calculation myself, nor even asked OpenAI (or other AI, which are almost certainly capable of doing it), but I heard a presentation say the number is off by a factor of 3. To me '3' is best described as "no where near an order of magnitude". Since there's no way we're measuring the radius of the universe nor the mass in it accurately, I think being off by only a factor of 3 is astoundingly "accurate". When you're dealing with many many orders of magnitude like these astronomically large numbers, and you end up being only off by 3x that's actually pretty close. Too close to be an accident. If the theory was "wrong" it would be off by many orders of magnitude.

antonvs 2y ago

Sean Carroll discusses this in "The Universe is not a Black Hole": https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-uni... Relevant quote: > "Still, some folks will stubbornly insist, there has to be something deep and interesting about the fact that the radius of the observable universe is comparable to the Schwarzschild radius of an equally-sized black hole. And there is! It means the universe is spatially flat."

quantadev 2y ago
Sean Carroll is not really an unbiased party. He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory, so he's going to simply disagree with anything else, and he's going to disagree with anything that's not a "standard" theory. He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.
- antonvs 2y ago
  > He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not aware of Carroll having "his own theory" that he's "staked his entire reputation on." In any case, he's explained his position, even in the quote I provided. He's simply describing what general relativity says about this. If you have some issue with it, you can respond on technical grounds, without needing to resort to ad hominem. > He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. Big Bang is not "disproven" - the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang is still known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," and nothing has replaced it as a consensus among mainstream scientists. > There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct. The issue of galaxy ages has a number of reasonable explanations in the context of Lambda-CDM. One of them could simply have to do with age estimates, which is an area that suffers from limited observational data that's difficult to interpret. Recent work on the Hubble tension may help resolve that, e.g.: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-suggests-our-model-universe-may-hold-after-all https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-sugg... The idea that galaxy ages "disproves" Big Bang theory is at best, a misunderstanding of pop science hype, and at worst pseudoscience. That's not how science works, especially in cosmology where most evidence is very indirect and subject to interpretation.