20 ms·
Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole
- codingclaws 1y agoCould a computer simulation also contain another universe, with virtual black holes that have universes?
- downboots 1y agoCan a computer simulate itself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92WHN-pAFCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92WHN-pAFCs
- thrill 1y agoMaybe it was the repeat.
- karol 1y agoBeginning is an illusion created by our way of perception. Time is neither linear nor real so how can there be a "beginning"?
- gjsman-1000 1y ago"Your honor, I could not have possibly shot that person, because yesterday might not have been before today, or at least, there is reasonable doubt that yesterday was before today, according to some physicists on crack. I treat those physicists with high regard personally though, and they have degrees that you don't have, so the court must reasonably conclude their opinions should be entertained."
- asveikau 1y agoI guess that's a joke, but it's actually kind of serious that causality, personhood, identity, free will, etc. are all social constructs. They are useful to us, but every now and then it's helpful and humbling to remember it's a fiction we assign, rather than fundamental. Criminal justice or the concept of culpability is one of these areas. I know I've seen material by Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist who does not believe in free will, talking about how off the mark criminal justice and punishment for crimes can be.
- ofjcihen 1y agoYou’re stating this as if determinism has been proven beyond a doubt which is not the case.
- asveikau 1y agoI think it's unclear what kind of determinism you are presuming. Determinism in the universe? Determinism in consciousness? Certainly a deterministic machine can exist in a non-deterministic universe. However I didn't just assume a lack of free will. I also assumed a lack of identity. Do you realize that who you are is socially defined? When you breathe in, the air in the room around you becomes part of you. When you breathe out, you lose certain gases. When you eat your food, similar story. There's a good case to be made that "you" are in the entire room or the entire food chain. That does make causality and culpability hard to assess objectively. When we do so, we do so subjectively.
- ofjcihen 1y agoAh, so we’re playing at being shamans. In that case I dub you a mushroom.
- asveikau 1y agoDon't be silly. I didn't say anything about shamans. I'm saying human existence is subjective. Culpability, like the courtroom joke above, is subjective. They're useful models for how the world works but it isn't objective reality. We would do well to remember that every now and then. People who get too into pretending their perspective is objective reality tend to do stupid things.
- rendx 1y agoIsn't identity exactly defined as what one perceives as part of oneself? Food becomes me as soon as I dis-member it to make it to be part of myself. Other food becomes you. This doesn't make food not within my sphere of perception a part of me; before digestion, it stays separate, like a virus doesn't become part of me -- the immune system acts a biological discriminator between what is part of me, and what is not. You are not me, and I am not you; we are physically attached to different matter. I understand people play mind games based on varying definitions of identity, but ultimately you will find that you have control over certain things comprised of physical matter, which then together with your mind makes up "you", and you're not in control of other things, which make them "not you". That's how I would say it is defined, after all. I am not in the entire food chain, because my perception and control simply doesn't reach that far. If I could control objects with my mind, it would be reasonable to say that they are a part of "my body", which makes them a part of me. If you use these language constructs differently, we lose the ability to communicate over them?
- emigre 1y ago"Objection, your honor. In the many-worlds interpretation there is a world in which that happened."
- lazide 1y agoI wonder how far counsel could take it before the judge hit them with contempt for lawyering while Nietzsche.
- layer8 1y agoMany-worlds doesn’t predict that everything happens somewhere; far from it.
- emigre 1y agoWell, it's just a joke. :) It doesn't necessarily have to make a lot of sense. In any case, I find your comment very interesting. I'm studying quantum computing at the moment, and I've had to read the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, including Everett's many-worlds interpretation. As a non-physicist, I've found the different interpretations fascinating. The many-worlds one, as far as I understood it, says that all the possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually "happen" in different worlds. I have the impression that you would be able to give a much better explanation. In any case, in the joke the gun is shot in the macro world, not in a quantum state. It's possible that it is a quantum gun, but probably not. Let's say "overruled" then.
- layer8 1y agoThe many-worlds theory says that the time-evolution of the (universal) wave function according to the Schrödinger equation is what's real. Different "slices" ("branches") of the wave function correspond to different "worlds". (A "world" is basically defined by what is quantum-entangled together.) The wave function thus decomposes into the different worlds. Collapse theories, in contrast, state that at specific points in time (the "measurements"), the wave function stops following the Schrödinger equation, and instead collapses to a single slice/branch/world, thus upending the natural proliferation of branches implied by the normal time-evolution of the wave function according to the Schrödinger equation. Even in many-worlds, however, the wave function doesn't necessarily contain all conceivable worlds. It only contains the worlds, following from some initial quantum state, that follow from the Schrödinger equation. While it's true that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement become real (because they are all contained in the wave function in superposition), "possible" here means specifically what the equations allow, not any imaginable world.
- 90s_dev 1y agoxkcd super soaker
- jjallen 1y agoWhat if it wasn't the beginning of our universe or wasn't the beginning of everything, including what is probably outside of our universe?
- colechristensen 1y agoEh, the thing about the statement there is you're redefining "universe", which is fine, but restating a definition isn't really saying anything new. The literal meaning of "universe" especially with respect to the Latin origins is... well... everything. It may make sense for physics to separate in to separate sets of everything if there's some reasonable justification.
- exe34 1y agoThere's the Universe (everything everywhere everywhen), and then there's the observable universe. Most testable theories will be referring to the observable universe.
- runarberg 1y agoAs I understand it (I‘m not a cosmologist by any means), saying that the observable universe began at big bang simply means that anything that happened before the big bang has no effect on what happens afterwards. There may be other universes out there, with their own big bangs, but that has no effect on ours. Reading this article, I think they are simply disputing the necessity of singularity inside a black hole, and hypothesize a universe which expands from non-singularity black hole, while staying inside its own event-horizon. That is how I understood it at least, somebody please correct me if I misunderstood it.
- matt3210 1y ago[flagged]
- rgreek42 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- DannyPage 1y agoAsimov already covered this in The Last Question: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gjsman-1000 1y ago[flagged]
- Vrondi 1y agoYou're missing the part where the robot was created by us.
- gjsman-1000 1y agoWow, that makes it even dumber. That idea was literally also in Genesis as the original sin of man: "You shall be as Gods." Edit, for posting too fast: I don't consider the response below to be in good faith, for if there is a God, nothing could be more offensive than to deliberately try to knock him down a few pegs to be "plausible"; while considering the Big Bang to be "plausible" because that doesn't count as "fantasy style magic."
- throwaway314155 1y agoYou're being downvoted for a bad read of the material. Any comparisons to God are intentional and deliberate - but mostly serve to knock God down a peg or two by grounding it in something plausible instead of the faith based miracles and straight up fantasy style magic from the Bible. Futurama has a great episode where Bender meets God (who has merged with a computer) that tackles similar themes. If you find this to be a harsh reaction, maybe consider how the wording of your initial comment is an effective provocation to anyone who doesn't share your belief system.
- 1y ago
- xorokongo 1y ago"Nothing" implies that something exists, this duality creates the universe.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- aswanson 1y agoThere is no proof of "nothing " existing. Every observation we take, we see "something".
- xorokongo 1y agoThan why do we need a beginning if there was always something.
- thesuitonym 1y agoWe don't. There was never nothing, because there is no "before" the big bang. Time as we know it did not exist until the big bang. It's not there was nothing, it's that there was no there or then.
- roywiggins 1y agoThere is as yet no proof that there was nothing before the big bang, it's just a supposition. The hot dense universe definitely happened but whether that was the "beginning" is essentially unknown.
- lazide 1y agoFor the same reason the mind seeks for an ending if there is something. It’s the environment our little neural nets trained in.
- ramon156 1y agoWe don't need it, the same way we don't "need" scientific proof about anything. We could live our whole life pleasing the stakeholders and be happy about it
- paxys 1y agoThere are countless versions of this theory out there. Basically, a universe existed, then collapsed down to a single point, and then expanded again (the big bang). Rinse and repeat.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mrtksn 1y agoIsn't time a human invention useful to model the nature? It's literally just a defined interaction as a reference, i.e. the sun rising up and going down which is the rotation of the earth. So IRL there's no time, there's no need to have a beginning or an end. Whatever happened when all the matter was close together isn't the beginning of anything, just a phase.
- tomrod 1y agoI'm butchering the mythology, but the Greeks had Cronos and Kranus. One was measurement, and one best explained as cause and effect.
- soulofmischief 1y agoWe have no idea if there is a meaningful beginning or end, other than heat death. But time is real in the sense that there is an arrow of time, due to entropy.
- Morizero 1y agoNot true. The arrow of entropy has a direction and it's the same as the arrow of time. There's not a good explanation for why though.
- mrtksn 1y agoThere's no arrow of entropy, it's an invented useful model to describe something that nature does. Everything is like that, I.e. there's no electric field, it's a useful way to do calculations about particle interactions.
- lagrange77 1y agoOf course these are models. And to be able to recognise that entropy increases with time is an example for their usefulness.
- mrtksn 1y ago
- lloeki 1y agoThis has been one of my pet theories for a while. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39271752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39271752
- xutopia 1y agoI love that theory. I very much spent time thinking that it would be cool if we were inside a black hold after reading A Brief History of Time.
- carbocation 1y agoI think it's neat that this summary is written by an author of the scientific manuscript. Oversimplification is a risk, but this approach eliminates the possibility that the writer did not understand the underlying science.
- n2d4 1y agoYea, and it was a great read too. I wish more researchers would publish blog posts alongside their technical whitepapers, although I acknowledge that not everyone involved in science has or wishes to acquire the skills needed to write blog-form content. (I'd also be worried about a world where researchers are evaluated based on the virality of their blog posts, vs. how impactful their work was.)
- pkaodev 1y ago[flagged]
- 4ndrewl 1y agoCan you cite your sources please?
- johnisgood 1y agoMost jobs are really not important either, they just keep people busy. Do you need sources for this claim, too?
- lukas099 1y agoYes. Who are these people paying for jobs that don't do anything, and why are they more concerned about "keeping people busy" than their own profits?
- ckdot 1y agoI’m not the one you were referring to, but I have similar experiences. I’m living in Germany, and most bigger companies here have such issues. I also worked for companies in Netherlands and Island, so I assume it’s an European, if not global problem. No one is concerned about keeping people busy. It’s a systemic problem. And there are multiple reasons for it. One reason is that the bigger a company grows, the more hierarchy is necessary. But increasing hierarchy will lead to people doing the work are not the people that are most responsible for it. So we have people that should do the work but they aren’t too motivated because they are not responsible enough - they are too low in hierarchy level. And we have people that are responsible but don’t do the work. They delegate. If something goes wrong or takes too long, they will have enough time and skill to find an excuse. Another issue is that you need more people to get specific things done. At some point in time these things have been done, and you actually don’t need the amount of people anymore. But you can’t quit them because of worker’s laws. You maybe even don’t want to quit them because you think you still need them. People, of course, tend to find reasons why their own work is important. And they will communicate that. And the chance is good you’ll believe that and don’t question it enough. There are more reasons for that. But it’s a fact that in many, many companies the economical results of a lot of employees is almost zero. If you don’t believe this, just google the biggest companies in Germany, pick one, apply for an office job and start to work there. It won’t take a month until you’ll find out. Btw. I don’t want to criticize the situation too much. Probably it’s good that people are employed, even if they don’t work efficiently. Otherwise the unemployment rate would be much higher. Then again, Germany‘s economy is flatlining and a crash is not unlikely.
- bmacho 1y ago> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
- twodave 1y agoMight as well believe in God if you’re going to believe in spontaneous accidental creation…
- gjsman-1000 1y ago[flagged]
- tengwar2 1y agoHow so? If you attribute it to an earlier universe, you are just pushing the problem further back. It doesn't seem to be a proof or even a mild indication.
- gjsman-1000 1y agoThe universe casually didn't follow the laws of physics immediately after the Big Bang, an improbable event directly after an improbable event. No explanation has been found, even according to CERN, why everything that was created was not spontaneously annihilated. Attributing that to a divine intervention is the most probable explanation. CERN attributing this to "Some unknown entity" is humorous. One theory (which CERN is using) is to argue that almost all matter was destroyed, and that the current observable universe is merely the tiny leftover due to slight differences in behavior, making the Big Bang look more like the Ludicrous Bang. This, of course, just contributes to religious snickering at how all problems are solved by adding another billion years to the timeline, over and over. https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetr... Edit to reply: They behave differently; but why there is more of one than the other, remains unexplained; as regardless of how they behave, both should have been initially created in equal numbers. As for Sabine Hossenfelder's quote, that's a religious-faith level cop-out. When science requires faith, should it not be treated as a religion?
- mensetmanusman 1y agoΩₖ = 0.0007 ± 0.0019 (68% confidence level) If the universe is curved dark energy is still a problem because the expansion is getting faster and overcomes the current curvature bounds.
- mclau157 1y agoExpansion definitely creates some issues here, at longer time scales how do we deal with this?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bglusman 1y agoWow, wild this is being taken seriously now perhaps, I first encountered the idea in The Life of The Cosmos ~26 years ago[0] and my impression was the author, Lee Smolin, didn't REALLY beleive it, but he came up with it mostly to have some kind of preferable, falsifiable(er?) alternative to string theory, which he disliked even more, and perhaps more as an idea of the kind of theory we need to explore to start making progress... or that's my memory/impression form 26 years ago, I've been meaning to re-read it for a while since. Anyone read more recently/have other impressions? (the basic idea was fecund universes/cosmological natural selection[1], such that we should expect to find ourselves, if the theory were true, very near to a local maxima of values such that they approximately maximize the number of black holes produced... but most of the book is really taken up with a fascinating look at the history of physics and ideas...) [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_the_Cosmos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_the_Cosmos [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
- rramon 1y agoI speculate that the big bang is/was fueled by all the black holes that existed and will exist, like a huge cycle where all the energy sucked into black holes converges at the same point in time causing the big bang.
- bsenftner 1y agoFractal Universe - I discussed the idea with Benoit Mandelbrot back in '84 over beers, interning for him, before he'd published "Beauty of Fractals."
- lagrange77 1y agoCool anecdote!
- jpeterson 1y agoHow do you deal with Hawking radiation?
- henry2023 1y agoMaybe with space expansion? With more space, particles interaction is weaker overall. So the whole system kind of loses total energy. * Not a physicist so this is a really uninformed take
- brian-bk 1y agoflip the direction of time and hawking radiation ""creates"" mass/energy inside a black hole (overall mass/energy is conserved)
- collinvandyck76 1y agoThe bounce to me has always seemed more intuitive than the bang, but man, when it comes to the quantum universe I've learned to just check intuition at the door.
- edfletcher_t137 1y ago> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe. Does it also follow that black holes in our universe contain universes internally, beyond their event horizons?! Seems like it should. Mind-blowing.
- int_19h 1y agoIt's not a new idea, although I don't think it would be accurate to describe the other universes as "contained" within the black hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassive_White_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassi...
- lelag 1y agoDamn, I would not have guessed that Men In Black was actually a documentary...
- EasyMark 1y agoI thought the universe they were saving in that was in some kind of "fish bowl" type universe (galaxy?)
- goodcanadian 1y agoDoes it also follow that black holes in our universe contain universes internally, beyond their event horizons?! Not necessarily. It's not clear that any are massive enough to cross the threshold required for the "bounce."
- physix 1y agoI think this is a great summary. It's quite intuitive and elegant. Does anyone have any information about what the author's peers think of this model? I'd love the idea that we are living inside a black hole, which is inside a black hole, which is inside a ...
- m3kw9 1y agoSo what if one of the numerous black holes in the universe starts to bounce?
- RS-232 1y agoNot many people these days like to hear this (I myself was one of them), but the answer to this is in Genesis. There's a reason some of the most famous mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and philosophers of all time believe(d) in God. The Hebrew name of God, YHWH, literally means "He Who Is." In other words, the Self-Existent One. The father and originator of all things that were, are, and will be, who exists outside of spacetime.
- jaapbadlands 1y agoThat explains nothing.
- RS-232 1y agoNeither does the precursor to the Big Bang. It's the same exact thing.
- jplusequalt 1y agoThey are not the same thing. Religion and science may try to answer the same questions, but they are entirely different endeavors.
- 90s_dev 1y agoThe idea that they're mutually exclusive is entirely stupid.
- steve_adams_86 1y agoThe trouble is we can strive to understand the physical circumstances we find ourselves in. Once we decide that the circumstances simply 'just are' because He Who Is, we no longer have an objective basis for discovering why things are as they are. There's no need, no purpose.
- SigmundA 1y agoThis is not an answer that satisfies just begs more questions. Who Created God? No one? Why does the universe need a creator if God does not? Where does free will and evil come from if God is "originator of all things that were, are, and will be". For true free will to exist it must have a source of entropy which denotes something outside of Gods control and design otherwise everything is deterministic as set forth by God.
- jl6 1y agoI didn’t understand whether the author is implying that this happens to all black holes or whether the model only applies in some circumstances. I definitely didn’t understand whether this is suggesting that expanding universes can be contained within black holes that look like fixed-size finite objects from the outside. And what happens to the inner universe when the parent black hole evaporates through Hawking radiation?
- WD-42 1y agoThe heat death of the inner universe.
- kannanvijayan 1y agoOh I have so many questions on this topic. I've often wondered about this. I don't have any direct physics training, but it's something that felt really plausible after I learned that the mass of a black hole is linearly proportional to its swarzschild radius. As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. Combined with the other observation that our universe has uniform density at large scales, it seemed really obvious to me that there existed some threshold at which the decreasing density of a very large black hole, and the fixed density of our observed universe.. would cross. I used to muse about this question with some other tech colleagues that liked talking about physics stuff but never really got a clear answer to this. On a side note - I'm absolutely fascinated by the implications relating to this. I'll post a follow-up thought I'm hoping somebody else has also thought about: I've seen discussion of dark energy mostly presented as a surrogate for real energy. That there is some underlying energy "accelerating things away from each other". I always felt uncomfortable with that characterization. It seems more reasonable to me to think of dark energy as _negative energy_ - i.e. a loss of overall energy. In a classical system, two things moving away from each other stores potential energy that can be recouped at some later time. Dark energy doesn't work this way - things accelerate away from each other the further apart they are. From a global perspective, it's an energy loss. The energy loss pervades to the quantum world as well - photons that start off high frequency arrive low-frequency. It somehow feels more appropriate to me to think of dark energy as energy being extracted out of the universe, in some form never to return. Maybe like a black hole evaporating as observed from the inside? When I asked this of some people in real life, I was pointed to answers that indicated that the "energy" component in dark energy is normalized into the "tension" of space somehow. As I mentioned before I'm not really studied in physics, but that explanation felt unsatisfactory to me.
- dvh 1y agoPlug estimated mass of universe to your schwarzschild formula and be amazed how close it is to observable size of the universe.
- kannanvijayan 1y agoI tried once, but I'm not sure what terms to throw in there. Visible matter, estimated dark matter.. anything else? I think my estimate came out to less dense than the required threshold but it was a while back now and cobbled together with some queries to wolfram.
- danieldrehmer 1y agoI sympathize with Lee Smoolin's cosmological natural selection hypothesis, which would require that black holes give birth to new universes within
- bglusman 1y agoI can’t beleive you and I are the only ones familiar with, and that no one else referenced or responded to this connection! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44251438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44251438
- meta-level 1y agoI too read the book and was just searching for anyone mentioning it. Why can such an idea be called new, when someone else already described it decades ago?
- tehjoker 1y agoThis was an interesting read, but I didn't understand exactly what leads to the big crunch. I get the exclusion principle leads to pressure, and this causes the bounce, but why would it continue to accelerate and then decelerate resulting in a big crunch? https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103537 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.1...
- chasil 1y agoI don't understand where the rest of the parent universe is if all of the matter has emerged from the event horizon. Twisted into a new dimension, perhaps?
- tehjoker 1y agoMy take away was that it's still somehow causally disconnected from our universe. They make an assumption that the space outside is empty and that makes the numbers correspond closely with observations. Maybe there is stuff there but very very far away?
- meindnoch 1y agoI've read somewhere an article which posited that our 3D universe might be inside a 4D black hole. When you cross a black hole's event horizon, the radial coordinate becomes timelike, so you lose one degree of spatial freedom. Movement is still possible in the tangential directions however, so what you get is basically an N-1 dimensional universe. So maybe our 3D universe is actually matter that fell into a 4D black hole, and our 3D black holes contain 2D flatland universes. And of course, the outer 4D universe might be in a 5D black hole, etc.
- unyttigfjelltol 1y agoYes, and then there's the parlor game of guessing what familiar property of our known universe is actually a spaghetified fourth dimension. I guessed c once. It would be a constant. Maybe all the constants are spaghettified remains of a superior universe.
- jfengel 1y agoI don't think c is a good candidate, because it's not really a parameter. It's just a correction factor for our mis-judgment in picking different units for time and space. In "natural units", we define the units so that the important conversion factors (c, G, h-bar, etc) work out to exactly 1. You can say that c is one light-year per year and then forget about it. The true parameters of the universe are the dimensionless constants: the fine structure constant, proton-electron mass ratio, 3+1 dimensions, etc.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago> I don't think c is a good candidate, because it's not really a parameter. dont be so sure! there is no way to experimentally know if c is a parameter or not. there are consistent physics formulations which have variable, even anisotropic c. physicists dont usually explore them (e.g. tangherlini relativity) though because the math is considerably harder.
- 1y ago
- molticrystal 1y agoIf the crux of the article is the fermion bounce, and you compare that to how much matter and energy we are aware of, that is quite the black hole, which leads one to start wondering what environment it existed in to become that size. Even if it is now stuck due to a positive curvature of just bouncing back and forth. I would like the article to acknowledge a bit more though that blackhole universe theories and speculation are quite old now, not radical and a striking alternative, as it is natural to think about it once you learn of the concept of event horizons. What differentiates this though is the analytical solution.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pontifier 1y agoThere was a youtube lecture I saw years ago that showed exactly what you'd see as you fell into a black hole and passed through the event horizon. You'd see EVERYTHING that EVER crossed the event horizon. But critically, you'd see it EXACTLY as it was at the monent it crossed. Sounds a bit crowded to me. Sounds a bit like I'd expect the big bang to look.
- EasyMark 1y agoI thought you were supposed to get spaghettified and die instantly ?
- pontifier 1y agoAt the event horizon of a large enough black hole, the tidal difference in gravity between your toes and head shouldn't be noticeable. There shouldn't actually be anything special about falling through the event horizon when looking at yourself. Outside though, you'd see everything start to blue-shift. Things below you would blue shift back to normal, and the universe above you would blue-shift and speed up until you'd see the heat death of the universe. Anything falling in after you would red-shift again as it approached to match your "normal" rate of time. Critically this would include any light or other particles, so it might be very hard to survive. No matter how fast you go or how weird the space time you are in, your local clock should still tick steadily to you, and you wouldn't notice anything weird.
- pontifier 1y ago-Just watched the lecture again, and you wouldn't actually see the outside universe speed up.
- paulmooreparks 1y ago> There shouldn't actually be anything special about falling through the event horizon when looking at yourself. If you went in feet-first, you'd perhaps find it quite odd that your feet never seemed to cross the horizon, as they would have red-shifted so dramatically. > you wouldn't notice anything weird. Maybe you wouldn't notice that you never saw your feet cross, since you wouldn't have much time to ponder it before your head crossed as well, but at that point, you surely you would notice that everything below you is black, since all light (and everything else) is now destined for the singularity. That's the very definition of the event horizon. There wouldn't be any reflected light.
- ogou 1y agoThe word "research" in this title is a handy placeholder for indeterminate conjecture. No research happened, it's a theory he made up.
- Frost1x 1y agoI would argue that theory is a critical part of the research process and is therefore research. There’s of course a line between simply coming up with ideas that are quickly provably wrong or inconsistent vs generating ideas that are consistent and not quickly falsified. It’s especially valuable the ideas are falsifiable and it seems like this is the case here. As such, theory finds patterns in existing knowns, makes some leaps and tries to connect them. Then empirical evidence can help solidify or falsify those ideas. But we tend not to just connect dots of empirical data without attempting to know the casual relationship, otherwise the connections can be rather nonsensical or may have weak predictive power. With all that said I didn’t read the paper in detail nor am I qualified in this domain to say if it’s quackery or a reasonable shot a developing some new theory. It is peer reviewed and published in APS so I suspect it’s not complete quackery: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103537 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.1...
- ogou 1y agoA research paper makes use of multiple sources of known provenance and various degrees of authority and relevance. It tries to establish a consensus of knowledge, as close to fact as possible. The phrase "research suggests" is an appeal to authority that implies some kind of academic rigor. A theory paper, which is still useful and important, can be published without any kind of authority. You can just make things up.
- namenotrequired 1y agoWould you say Einstein was not a researcher?
- Ar-Curunir 1y agoThat is what is called research in theoretical fields. Making hypotheses up and then proving implications of those hypotheses. In this case, it yields a falsifiable test: the theory claims the universe should have small positive curvature.
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoSean Carroll says this is absolute nonsense: https://youtu.be/U3uIiv48q98?feature=shared&t=6046 https://youtu.be/U3uIiv48q98?feature=shared&t=6046
- lkmill 1y agoIf this is true it almost literally means black holes are a way for universes to make children. If we apply Darwin’s principles of the strongest survive this must mean that universes that produce the most black holes are the “best”. If correct, what does this actually mean?
- henry2023 1y agoDarwinian logic requires a feedback loop. And because those universes are isolated then there’s no “incentive” of a universe to have more “offspring”?
- ben_w 1y agoIt requires imperfect reproduction where the imperfections alter the probability of further reproduction. If each black hole in our universe contained a pocket universe with very slightly different laws of physics (to each other and to us), but the same amount of mass-energy on the inside as our universe had when it started, then (1) those pocket universes able to create stars and black holes would also go on to create black holes with pocket universes, but also (2) those pocket universes not able to create black holes, would not create more pocket universes. I have never seen a reason to think that this could happen, nor why such pocket universes might have more mass on the inside than they appear to have on the outside, but that's the argument.
- jbjbjbjb 1y agoThere is a theory of cosmological evolution. The child universes have slightly different physical constants and universes that produce more black holes will leave behind more offspring universes so over many generations, the universes evolve toward parameters that favour black hole production.
- pantalaimon 1y agoThat's what Blowtorch theory predicts, it notes three stages of black hole formation: - direct collapse after the big bang. Those supermassive black holes now from the center of galaxies and are the earliest and simplest form of how universes reproduced - stellar collapse, requires the formation of stars, but those can be much more plentyfull than previous supermassive direct collapse black holes, so many more universes will have those - black holes created by technology. Since black holes are incredibly efficient at converting mass to energy, in a universe that has the capability to form intelligent life, this life will eventually find a way to harness black holes as an energy source. In doing so they would create even more tiny black holes (maybe to power spaceships?), so such universes would form the most offspring.
- hybrid_study 1y agoI thought this was already an old general idea; that each black hole ignites the birth of a new universe?
- m3kw9 1y agoThis theory actually makes sense. Vs big bang where half of the theory is “let’s assume that there is this thing that explodes”
- lagrange77 1y agoIf universes can exist in black holes and obviously black holes exist in universes, doesn't that smell like infinite recursion?
- stevenAthompson 1y agoWhat reason do we have to believe that every universe can support black holes? We only have a sample size of 1 here.
- EasyMark 1y agoWhat reason do we have to believe that there is more than one universe?
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoBlack holes all the way down
- Toby1VC 1y ago"In my room, redefinin' the meanin' of black holes" - Earl Sweatshirt
- stevenAthompson 1y agoI went to school in a very bad neighborhood. Once I was sent to the office because my math teacher asked me what I was reading about that was soo much more interesting than our textbook. I happened to be reading "A Brief History of Time", so I answered "black holes." At the time I couldn't understand why my dad laughed about that particular phone call from the principal.
- Toby1VC 1y agoHahahahahahahaha
- afroboy 1y agoI'm not a scientist or astrophysicist but i do believe in science, is it ok to believe that we as humans and all our scientific development still very very far from proving anything remotely close to how the universe got created? I feel this subject is for humanity in year 2600 to start discussing it. Scientist still can show their theories and search papers and i can't understand a shit but i don't believe in any theory that proves how the universe got created.
- philipov 1y agoBefore we can prove, we must first wonder. We proceed by small steps, and if we don't start discussing it now, 2600 will still be too early.
- ptmcc 1y agoIt's not about belief, it's about observing, collecting data & evidence, and proposing possible explanations. As new observations and evidence are found the possible explanations are refined. No one credible is claiming hard proof of anything at this point.
- didibus 1y agoAgreed, people often mix that up, but you have to adopt a probabilistic mindset, you can believe the coin with land on its head, but you also know that based on the weight and curvature of the coin it will land on its tail 68% of the time you flip it, etc. Then choosing tail is no longer a belief, it is simply going with the choice that is backed by prior observation, experiments, models, etc. You might still lose, and so you might choose to also believe it will land on tail this time, but the rationale for choosing tail was not based on a belief system, but the going information and where it points too.
- belter 1y agoIf we can't even predict inflation rates maybe we should hold off on explaining the birth of the entire universe, yeah?
- 1y ago
- HocusLocus 1y agoSuggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
- mmh0000 1y agoAdded. Opinions: A) I love all the scifi book recommendations that cone up on HN B) i wish you’d all stop recommending great and amazing books. My queue is so backlogged and jammed I'm never going to catch up.
- arto 1y agoSo many books, so little time...
- mewpmewp2 1y agoIf only we had an even bigger universe, we would have more time... is that how it works?
- figassis 1y agoLike this? https://hacker-recommended-books.vercel.app/category/5/past-6-months/page/0/0 https://hacker-recommended-books.vercel.app/category/5/past-...
- dwaltrip 1y agoThat’s a very cool app, but I think it is missing many, many references to books in HN comments? It only has like 15 total sci-fi books. I don’t see any of my comments mentioning some sci-fi books.
- 1y ago
- pantalaimon 1y agoReminds me very much of Blowtorch Theory that was discussed here recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115973
- profsummergig 1y agoThe big bang sounds like how a computer would interpret being turned on. Anyone else think this is what happened?
- TheRealNGenius 1y ago[dead]
- TheRealNGenius 1y ago[dead]
- bigbuppo 1y agoNope, it's just you applying the thing you think you know to something you don't know.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BitwiseFool 1y agoComputers refer to this as 'the Big Boot'.
- pontifier 1y agoImagine a being inside a turing machine wondering what came before it was turned on... implying the turing machine is even on and we're not just looking at the set of all possible rule sets on a similarly abstracted mathematical chart.
- profsummergig 1y agoOne day someone's going to reboot that computer and I'm going to lose all my carefully curated trauma.
- larodi 1y agoit is funny the fact that author decided to explain who Galileo was
- johnwheeler 1y agoSo that's what that big blob in the Mandelbrot set is. It's a diagram of our fractal universe.
- ck2 1y agoThere's a PBS Space Time for that (from three years ago) https://www.pbs.org/video/could-the-universe-be-inside-a-black-hole-wjsrtp/ https://www.pbs.org/video/could-the-universe-be-inside-a-bla... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeRgFqbBM5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeRgFqbBM5E
- AppleBananaPie 1y agoWill hacker news side with ChatGPT or real physicists? :D Love PBS space time !
- tug2024 1y agoWhy does it always have to by “hyperbolic” instead of parabolic?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- TheRealPomax 1y agoVery high "Time started when someone clicked start" - "cool, how did events happen before they clicked start?" factor title.
- hshshshshsh 1y agoBig bang theory no longer excites me. As long as we can't explain consciousness all these theories are pointless. All theories mere appearances in consciousness including the universe and everything we experience. Consciousness has the property to render infinite universes and theories. But we have no clue how universe creates consciousness.
- bufferoverflow 1y agoFirst define consciousness such that the definition differentiates you from a computer with a webcam.
- hshshshshsh 1y agoYou cannot define consciousness. You can only experience it. In fact consciousness is the only thing you will ever experience.
- saulpw 1y agoPerhaps you should use 'sentience' or something more precise to mean 'qualia-experiencing'. The word 'consciousness' is quite overloaded and thus trips people up who haven't thought about this as extensively as you have. In particular many people take it to mean "self-awareness" (whether correctly or not), but it seems obvious to me that there are many sentient beings which lack self-awareness but still have an internal experience.
- hshshshshsh 1y agoYes. Self awareness is just another content inside consciousness.
- legohead 1y agoYou can measure various aspects of a computer. You can't measure consciousness.
- afarah1 1y agoInteresting read, but even if we assume the author is correct, and the cosmos formed as a black hole in a larger universe, the question remains, how did this larger universe formed, then? Might just be impossible to know.
- paleotrope 1y agoA larger black hole
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- alkonaut 1y agoIt’s turtles all the way down
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y agoBlack holes all the way up.
- kgwxd 1y agoif we assume the author is correct, it would cease to be a scientific endeavor.
- analog31 1y agoI'd put it a bit differently, that it remains a scientific endeavor, but leaves us in the same predicament as we're in now, which is the difficult work of forming a scientific theory that can only be tested indirectly.
- timewizard 1y agoIt may just be that the physical conditions of our universe just prior to the big bang are indistinguishable from that of the interior of black holes. In that sense black holes are areas where our universe has reverted from it's low entropy state all the way back to the initial nearly infinite entropy state.
- sullivantrevor 1y agomy feeling is that the beginning of the universe is so unbelievably unexplainable and strange that we will never truly understand its origin
- GodelNumbering 1y agoThis brings to mind something I keep thinking about for years (mostly from watching too many physics videos). - Gravity "slows" the time down, gravitational singularity should bring the time to a halt - Suppose there is a quantum process that makes the true singularity impossible, so all black holes immediately expand right back - Looking at it from our time scales, even if the singularity existed for a moment, it would appear that "infinite" time has passed while from the black hole's perspective, the expansion was instantaneous. - From earth's perspective, if the singularity ever existed in a black hole, it stands to reason that when the time "resumes" from a black hole expansion, it won't fall into any of our known timelines since infinite time would have passed.
- cogman10 1y agoAlong those lines, makes me wonder if the "bang" is in fact the fact that after the time compression, all matter/energy is effectively arriving at the same point all at once. Assuming our universe eventually collapses into a few black holes, perhaps the spawn of a new universe is simply all the matter and energy of our universe arriving at a new point in... time? an infinite amount of time in the future. Also, really mind bending to think the universe may just be an infinite series of black hole explosions with no beginning. It is because it always was.
- avmich 1y ago> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”). > And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions. Then how comes the neutron stars collapse into black holes despite obeying the exclusion principle?
- nick3443 1y agoIs it because the black hole is a macro distortion of spacetime and not a local quantum property?
- 1270018080 1y agoWith enough mass, there is enough energy from gravity to put all fermions into different states, so the collapse continues
- truculent 1y agoAre you suggesting that the authors’ “bounce” would only happen if the energy was not enough to put them into different states?
- colechristensen 1y ago>Then how comes the neutron stars collapse into black holes despite obeying the exclusion principle? One of the ways to overcome one of the levels of this degeneracy pressure is electron capture which is the opposite of a kind of beta decay. Squeeze hard enough and a proton combines with an electron to form a neutron and a neutrino. But there are several proposed levels of degenerate matter in neutron stars, the idea being that one (final?) level of this degenerate matter is dense enough to make an object smaller than its schwarzschild radius. Uncertainty is high because we have no current methods to observe any of this kind of matter. What goes on inside the schwarzschild radius is another mystery we don't have answers from, but there are lots of ideas with various levels of legitimacy. Quantum physics in and around singularities or things we think are singularities is not understood.
- holoduke 1y agoI still don't understand from the article why the bounce effect results in an accelerated expansion of space time. Is the black hole (our universe) in the parent universe getting bigger? And why is that non linear?
- normalaccess 1y agoI've always liked the Idea that black holes accelerate matter faster than light behind the event horizon propelling it back in time creating a singular white hole at the first moment. There are many many reasons why this is a dumb idea and it's just as much of a paradox as any other naturalistic creation theory.
- lofaszvanitt 1y agoSo the expansion comes from the bounce. And we are in a dormant supermassive black hole of sorts. How would it look like in our world if the mother blackhole is actively gobbling up matter from the parent universe?
- wrcwill 1y agowhile it doesn't take away from the article, i find it worrying that it seems mostly written with chatgpt "This is not just a technical glitch; it’s a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don’t really understand the beginning at all." "The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions." ugh
- AppleBananaPie 1y agoThere was a physicist who made a video making fun of crackpot theories from engineers and reading the comments we're all happy to put forth our completely unsubstantiated opinions with zero understanding of the math and observations involved
- PartiallyTyped 1y agoI thought the Pauli exclusion principle is why we have neutron stars, ie the degeneracy of a star results in the fusion of electrons and protons to form neutrons and emit neutrinos. What is preventing the collapse in this case and results in a bounce?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ahuth 1y agoCool article! I can hear Sean Carrol saying, though, that: 1. We know general relativity isn’t complete, because it doesn’t take quantum mechanics into account. 2. We can’t say whether this is right because we don’t know the quantum theory of gravity. But I don’t actually know what I’m talking about.
- truculent 1y ago> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe. What specifically is meant by interior? Does this mean “within the event horizon” or something else?
- brtkwr 1y agoNotebook LM version https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bb55f273-a5e8-461a-b71e-533a84ece515/audio https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bb55f273-a5e8-461a-b7...
- TheOtherHobbes 1y agoWhich suggests that: 1. You can have black holes inside black holes. 2. Potentially each black hole is a universe - although some are much smaller and less interesting than others.
- _i60b 1y ago[dead]
- hateful 1y agoI've always had this idea that perhaps the whole universe had already collapsed into many black holes and perhaps each galaxy was actually formed via hawking radiation. Then our galaxy came out of Sagittarius A*.
- DrNosferatu 1y agoDoes this model predict the CMB peaks?
- gghoop 1y agoI haven't read the paper, it's probably well beyond me, but I have always felt that the presumed existence of a singularity had to be the result of incomplete theory.
- taeric 1y agoI'm curious on what is "at stake" with this? The close lists a couple of predictions that this can lead to. I'm assuming they will be important in a far future time? Or do these help with some more near term problems? Edit: I hasten to add that I'm not asking to undermine the research. Seems the more the merrier, there. Genuinely curious on what some of this could lead to.
- blindriver 1y agoResearch? Sounds more like speculation.
- ajkjk 1y agoDon't suppose you read the paper..?
- tengbretson 1y agoIt's probably best not to jump to conclusions until we see it replicated in another universe.
- jarend 1y agoThe article is based on a physics paper (arXiv:2505.23877), not management theory or institutional metaphors. What the paper actually proposes is that the Big Bang may have been a gravitational bounce inside a black hole formed in a higher-dimensional parent universe. Quantum degeneracy pressure stops the collapse before a singularity forms. From the outside, it looks like a black hole. From the inside, it evolves as a 13.8 billion year expansion. That is general relativity applied across frames. Simply put this is a relativistic collapse model with quantum corrections that avoids singularities and produces testable predictions, including small negative curvature and a natural inflation-like phase.
- ASalazarMX 1y agoSo, could the same interaction create planar universes inside our own black holes? Linear universes inside those as well? It's incredible how big a 4-D universe would have to be to contain our own, even crazier if there are more levels; but our own universe could contain easily uncountable planar universes.
- dleeftink 1y agoIsn't it more a matter of how space is folded in higher dimensions rather than an increase in volume that accounts for containment? There is plenty of space in the corners: [0]: https://observablehq.com/@tophtucker/theres-plenty-of-room-in-the-corners#Fig2 https://observablehq.com/@tophtucker/theres-plenty-of-room-i...
- thechao 1y agoSigh: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23877 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23877
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- eggn00dles 1y agoseems like this is just giving up on quantum gravity and saying the pauli exclusion principle will hold regardless of the gravitational force.
- Noelia- 1y agoWhen I first heard the idea that our universe began inside a black hole from another one, it felt like something out of a sci-fi movie. But the more I sit with it, the more it starts to feel like the universe is quietly nudging us, saying it has a much bigger story to tell. If the Big Bang was just a moment in someone else’s universe, then maybe everything we know is just one chapter in a book far larger than we can imagine.
- J253 1y agoSo if our universe is inside a black hole from a parent universe, does that mean every black hole in our universe contains its own child universe? We could be living in cosmic Russian dolls all the way down?
- EMM_386 1y agoThese type of 'theories' I dislike only because they don't get to the root of the problem. It is the same for 'multiverse' where that is used to explain literally anything 'it's like that in this universe but not the others'. Sure, we can get creative and explain the Anthropic Principle by mentioning the multiverse. But none of this answers how something comes from nothing. Not the vacuum of space and its 'quantum foam' where particles jump in from nowhere. Because that's not 'nothing'. One of these nothings ... such as level 9. No possibilities. https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/ https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...
- jakeinspace 1y agoI won't touch level 8/9 nothings, other than to say I don't think they're coherent. But I am of the metaphysical camp that thinks there will be at least some small ground truth which physical law or object which cannot be reduced, an axiom of nature. Physics unfortunately will probably always be limited in distinguishing between basic facts which are truly irreducible, and those which are simply limits of our observational abilities. That's the thing that bothers me; even if there were a single beautiful law of nature that just IS, one which we actually manage to postulate based on evidence, we will never know for sure. GR definitely has a beautiful mystique, it's a shame that it's most likely just a mathematical approximation.
- ajuc 1y ago> But none of this answers how something comes from nothing Why do you assume there was nothing?
- 90s_dev 1y ago[flagged]
- bongodongobob 1y ago[flagged]
- 90s_dev 1y ago[flagged]
- jakeinspace 1y agoCoping with the meaningless splendor of the universe is daunting, but I will do my best!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 90s_dev 1y ago[dead]
- bongodongobob 1y agoThat's the whole point of studying this, which you reject. Let us know why your gut instinct is better. Show us your research.
- 90s_dev 1y agoThere's nothing wrong with studying science. What's silly is throwing away other valid sources of information and pretending they fall under the responsibility of science.
- beginnings 1y agogive us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest
- downboots 1y agoBertrand Russell is the pope
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y agoDo we live inside a black hole?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hulitu 1y ago> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole Is this OnlyFans ?
- lutusp 1y ago> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole The title's use of the word "research," and the paper's content, suggest the idea resembles science more than speculation. But in fact, the paper has no observational evidence, nor a proposal for acquiring evidence, to distinguish it from other similar speculations. To put it simply, at the center of a black hole is a singularity, a domain where existing theories can offer no guidance. So a new idea about singularities -- about black holes -- should suggest a testable property, to distinguish it from other similar ideas. I say "idea" here to avoid use of the term "theory," which in science requires observational evidence to move past the realm of speculation. Don't get me wrong -- speculations have an important role to play in science. But tendentious phrases like "research suggests" wrongly imply the presence of something more than speculation.
- whatever1 1y agoSo, the whole thing is a recursion, and the only thing left to see is how deep is the stack.
- Aardwolf 1y agoWouldn't it have to be a black hole anyway given how much matter was concentrated in a small point?
- Valgrim 1y agoA few years ago a popular idea was that our universe existed as an hologram on the surface of a black hole. Recently I saw also a theory that black hole might not, in fact, exist as we thought, and may be instead something called 'gravastars', where large stars do not collapse in an infinite point but instead the mass reaches a maximum density and hardness and become sorts of empty bubbles. Now this. It's not exactly a new idea, I remember reading about black hole cosmology 10 years ago. Sooo... My uneducated, pop-sci fueled imagination now sees the universe as a mathematical function of a fractal looking like a shell with patterns on it, and those patterns interact or 'fold' in a way where the patterns themselves can be thought of as shells with patterns on them, and each shell creates something that, from the inside, looks like a new dimension of space or time, and what we think of as black holes are the next fold. Does that make sense?
- maaaaattttt 1y agoIt makes sense to me... I think. And I like this vision as well. It would explain the big bang (initial black hole formation), why the universe is expending (at probably non constant rates over time) which would be the black hole "ingesting" matter and growing and maybe also why time and space are one. Same as you, a take from complete uneducated pop-sci fueled imagination.
- purpleidea 1y agoI always pondered about everything in our universe getting swallowed up continuously merging black holes until all of a sudden "everything" is "in" the black hole and then suddenly that's your big bang, and everything starts all over. I don't have the Ph.D physics/maths skills to work out the plausibility of any of that (or variations on that) but I've always felt I've been good at coming up with ideas. Any physicist wants to work with me, I'm https://purpleidea.com/contact/ https://purpleidea.com/contact/
- misja111 1y ago> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”). > And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions. Do I understand right, that this would mean that every formation of a black hole would result in a bounce?
- scotty79 1y agoI've heard about interesting theory. Since we observe large early galaxies, to explain them scientists postulate that they must have grown very quickly. But recently some scientists calculated how much light would such quickly growing galaxies could have emitted. And it turned out that this light after being dispersed by the dust and redshifted by the expansion of the universe it should have contribute to CMB, up to 100% of it's observed intensity. What's interesting they didn't make any assumptions outside of established modern cosmology. Just So it's entirely possible that CMB is something completely different than what we believed.
- rednik06 1y agoMore info available. TARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web. 1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems: The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem." The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy. The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories. TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality. 2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism Core Postulate: "All that exists is relation." There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others. The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation. This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status. Realism and Symbiosis Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones. The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network. 3. Mathematical Formalism 3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes. At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point. The emergent metric is given by: g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν} The Symbiotic Action is: S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[12gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[21gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)] where V(ϕ) is the relational potential. 3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility. The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence. When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws. 3.3. Quantization and Emergence TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime. The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}. 4. Phenomenological Implications TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles: Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics. Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles. Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field. Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants. Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop. 5. Scientific Achievements to Date Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials. Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation. Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization. Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models. White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review. 6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena. 7. Conclusion TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
- rednik06 1y agoTARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web. 1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems: The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem." The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy. The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories. TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality. 2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism Core Postulate: "All that exists is relation." There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others. The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation. This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status. Realism and Symbiosis Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones. The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network. 3. Mathematical Formalism 3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes. At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point. The emergent metric is given by: g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν} The Symbiotic Action is: S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[12gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[21gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)] where V(ϕ) is the relational potential. 3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility. The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence. When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws. 3.3. Quantization and Emergence TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime. The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}. 4. Phenomenological Implications TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles: Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics. Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles. Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field. Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants. Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop. 5. Scientific Achievements to Date Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials. Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation. Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization. Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models. White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review. 6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena. 7. Conclusion TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
- tekkk 1y agoInteresting sci-fi plot device but seems far-fetched, not gonna lie. To think that our highly stable universe is just compressed mass of another universe is a lot to take in. Does that black hole emit Hawking radiation as well and shouldnt our universe lose mass in result? And how exactly can our universe expand if the size of the black hole is fixed? Well, at least it does make for interesting conversations. Someone will surely milk it for Youtube content.
- ordu 1y agoHmm... What if some matter falls into our black hole? I know there are some weird time-space effects on the boundary, which I do not have any intuition about. To my knowledge it may be, that it will never fall in our time frame, or that it have fallen all already. The question is, will we able to see and welcome new matter entering our Universe?
- rokobobo 1y agoI may be wrong, but I believe spending time in a deeper gravitational well means you observe everything outside of the well to be happening much faster; at the singularity, the entire future of the parent universe will appear to you as happening all at once. There is no notion of “matter that falls in later” — once you reach the singularity, you travel to the end of time in the parent universe. And the passage of time in our universe isn’t a continuation of time in the parent universe; it’s not even the same dimension, the latter is collapsed.
- giorgioz 1y agoThank you! That answered my question whether there would be in our universe a "white fountain" spitting matter coming from the back hole in the top universe. In your hypothesis where we lose one dimensione over the top universe than all the events of the top universe, like the mass arriving, happen in our universe all at the once in the beginning (the big bang).
- dinkblam 1y agostupid question: if at the beginning of the universe (before the big bang) all the matter was in the very same spot, shouldn't this have been effectively been a black hole due to the extreme density? if so, how could it explode if nothing can escape a black hole?
- anonymous_sorry 1y agoThat's not a stupid question. But I suggest reading the linked article which pretty much covers this.
- oneshtein 1y agoBlack holes may contain a second event horizon in the center, like a Poisson's spot. So it was the Big Rip, when this spot was born.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lettervine 1y ago[dead]
- kosh2 1y agoI have two problems / questions with this: 1. This theory requires a parent universe that can't have been formed inside a black hole. This means there must a be second "universe creation" mechanism that we can / may never know about from our child universe. For me, this doesn't really answer the true question: "How did our universe begin?" Yeah, it may the "unknown field with strange properties" but instead we get an unknown parent universe with strange properties. 2. The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours since it has to contain all the matter that we see. How is a black hole supposed to form that is 750 billion times bigger than the largest black hole we know about?
- bagacrap 1y agoWouldn't every theory/model of the universe leave room for follow up questions? Why is it problematic if it doesn't answer literally every conceivable quandary?
- godelski 1y ago> requires a parent universe Not exactly. A universe can expand, slow down, then collapse. In this case, bouncing back out. Does that repeat forever? Does it lose energy in the bounce? If so, to where and how? > The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours Yes and no. You're not thinking about contraction. With relativity we can fit a 100ft ladder inside a 10ft barn. Most importantly, you don't need everything all figured out at once to publish. Then no one would always publish. There'd be nothing to improve on. Only one publication that says everything. Till then, everything does have criticisms and is incomplete. It's good to have criticisms! They lead you to the next work!
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoWhere does the information of the previous universe before the bounce go? Is it destroyed?
- JKCalhoun 1y agoIt's been suggested it is gone and that perhaps even new laws of physics are created with each iteration (but I don't know why that would be).
- 0x0203 1y agoIf the universe does have a positive curvature as this predicts, would that mean that if we look out into space, we could see the same galaxies multiple times? Or even our own galaxy in the past? Or is the predicted curvature slight enough that anything we might see multiple times is already beyond the limits of visibility due to universe expansion?
- mr_toad 1y agoOnly if the circumference of the universe is small enough for light to have made the round trip since the universe began. But we think that the universe is much larger than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon
- okokwhatever 1y agoScience today: {..insert here a statement...} maybe yes but also maybe not {...clickbait things here...}
- ddingus 1y agoGreat! Maybe the idea of a cyclical universe will gain traction. In my view, there is one universe. We are in it. It cycles from maximum to minimum condition endlessly. This cycle is much longer than any entity lifespan and for any entity, the current state is THE state for them, and all they will know and become. What does it expand into? Nothing. Space itself just gets bigger and smaller over time. No beginning, no end. It all just is.
- andreygrehov 1y agoWe are inside of a Docker container.
- joshdavham 1y agoWould it possibly make sense for a black hole in our universe to lead to a higher level "parent" universe? Or would any black hole universe contained within our own universe necessarily lead to a lower level "child" universe? Basically, I'm wondering if there's a way (within the constraints of this model) to access the parent universe.
- w10-1 1y agoAs a lay reader, it sounds like they are assuming what they are trying to prove. Yes, it produces a testable prediction, but seemingly based on a mathematical assumption derived from our observed cosmic radiation background. > This lower bound follows from the requirement of χk≥χ∗≃15.9 Gpc to address the cosmic microwave background low quadrupole anomaly As a lay reader, can I assume that no scientist would publish a theory with mathematical circularity (at the heart of the prediction)? I sure can't verify it myself.
- grumple 1y agoI've spent the past month or so immersed in Penrose diagrams. Some of the implications of the math and diagrams include white holes (opposite of black holes - spew matter outwards), infinite universes contained within one another other, anti-gravity universes, and things like this. You can also fall into a black hole and make it out into another universe instead of meeting the singularity (at least, an idealized, rotating black hole). Anyway, cool stuff.
- achillesheels 1y ago>We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. Wow - like this anti-humanist prejudice is totally 1993. And not in a good way. two-photon collision experiment has permitted humans to hypothesize a simpler explanation to the beginning of the creation of more electromagnetic forces, which obviously behave differently than how are bodies were designed to receive them i.e. evolutionary biological bandwidth...
- rxzzh 1y agoWhat would happen if beings living outside of our 'black hole universe' threw an object into the black hole, and thus into our universe? Would the object appear at the edge of our universe, or would some physical law prevent this from happening?
- uncircle 1y ago[dead]
- thro1 1y agoas we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time Glad to hear that. I'm looking forward to any theories how to convert time to space (and back) ..with orthogonal universes/singularities ?
- b0a04gl 1y ago[dead]
- cellular 1y agoHow is this differnent from Dr Nikodem Paplawski's tortion theory of the same? It was featured on Event Horizon (john Michael godier)?
- thedudeabides5 1y agonatural selection obviously operates at the level of universes