7 ms·

I 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 possibi

I 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 ago
Yea, 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 ago
    Can you cite your sources please?
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Most jobs are really not important either, they just keep people busy. Do you need sources for this claim, too?
      - lukas099 1y ago
        Yes. 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 ago
        I’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.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Sounds like you're describing the principal-agent problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
        HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
        > But you can’t quit them because of worker’s laws This is generally not a problem in the US.
      - daedrdev 1y ago
        The Bullshit Jobs jobs theory has been widely discredited by researchers, but you probably won't believe them. Consider that most business is B2B so it makes sense that the casual observer would not know what it's for. Additionally, the Bullshit Jobs book relies on a magazine survey, actual studies shows that the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless is very low and also decreasing over time
        dguest 1y ago
        I think you're right, but it's not how I remember it for some reason. I didn't read the book "Bullshit Jobs" [1] as an attempt to quantify how many jobs were bullshit. The author was an anthropologist with no interest in quantifying the economic impact. It's lots of amusing anecdotes from frustrated workers and a nudge for people to question the efficiency of capitalism. At least that's how I read it. But reading the wikipedia page it sounds like a lot of people fixated on the idea that society could double its efficiency. Hard to know if there's a correct interpretation of the book's claims, and unfortunately we can't ask: the author David Graeber died in 2020. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
        johnisgood 1y ago
        > while he claims that 50% of jobs are useless, less than 20% of workers feel that way, and those who feel their jobs are useless do not correlate with whether their job is useless. (Garbage collectors, janitors, and other essential workers more often felt like their jobs were useless than people in jobs classified by Graeber as useless.) Well, again, there is a huge difference between one's own perception of their job being useful or not. I believe garbage collectors, janitors, and nurses, are not examples of useless jobs. Useless jobs are mainly in the office, called "paper pushers". I mean come on, have you not been to any jobs (nor heard of any) where you had to pretend you were busy just to get paid? I saw plenty of cases.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        > the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless Worth to point out that there is a huge difference between people considering their jobs meaningless AND their job being meaningless, though.
      - hippari2 1y ago
        Ever since I first read this theory, I have always been wondering how credible is this. Where have you heard it from ?
        johnisgood 1y ago
        I am not sure, but probably related: https://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/ https://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-....
    - LPisGood 1y ago
      There have been countless academics who have discussed this topic, occasionally not behind closed doors. Regardless, it’s certainly my observation as well.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        Countless academics have leveled targeted criticisms at various practices and gone on to back those up. They are targeted, actionable objections; not vague blanket dismissals.
    - NL807 1y ago
      Sabine Hossenfelder has a few comments on this topic in her YT channel.
      - refulgentis 1y ago
        Sabine Hossenfelder cast herself out from academia and took a recent turn to monetizing laundering peoples vague understanding string theory is a waste of time (cannot be proven empirically) into academia is doing fake work and if they'd apologize and own up to it, maybe we would trust them again. Most famously, through a bizarrely written letter from an anonymous whistleblower pleading that she not topple the academy, as it would ruin the lives of thousands of academics making up things to get grant money to survive.
        adwn 1y ago
        I can't parse either of your sentences. Maybe you could introduce some intermediate variables, or use parentheses to give them structure?
        refulgentis 1y ago
        I can't parse what you're asking for :| Ran my comment + your reply through AI and asked it to respond to you, as I do want to help. Let me know if there's other instructions I can give it, it may have taken your variable ask too literally? :( Here's its output: Sabine Hossenfelder, after distancing herself from academia, has recently pivoted to monetizing a specific narrative: Let’s define Premise A as “String theory is a waste of time because it cannot be empirically proven.” She generalizes from Premise A to a broader Claim B: “Academia, more broadly, is producing fake work.” Her argument seems to imply that: If academia were to publicly acknowledge this, or apologize for promoting unverifiable theories, then the public might begin to trust it again. This general thrust reached a kind of crescendo in one of her more notorious moments: — An oddly written letter, allegedly from a whistleblower within academia, essentially begging her not to “bring down the system.” The letter’s rationale? That dismantling the status quo would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of academics who, according to the letter, are fabricating just enough plausible-sounding work to secure grants and stay afloat.
  - tracerbulletx 1y ago
    This is a good thing. This is where the economy surplus went. Not to 5 days of leisure for everyone. But to jobs that keep us occupied, engaged, and motivated but aren't strictly required. The alternative is just either starving everyone to death, except for a few elite and their slaves, or everyone being bored out of their minds and wondering what the point of life is.
    - inimino 1y ago
      If the solution is ever more manuscripts that solve no interesting problems and that nobody will ever read, let's find another solution.
      - hyperhello 1y ago
        Why would you assume someone would write the paper at all, if the problem was uninteresting?
        inimino 1y ago
        For one thing, because I watch the AI and ML categories on arxiv.org.
        friendzis 1y ago
        That's literally the basis of employment. People write papers, they get paid. Science does not get done.
        melagonster 1y ago
        The funding for scientific projects comes from applying for grants from the government. Researchers must write proposals to demonstrate the value of their projects. After the project is completed, they are also required to submit a final report to verify that the project was indeed carried out as approved by the supervising authority.
    - superb_dev 1y ago
  - bdbenton 1y ago
    It's a controversial observation, but it is very true. I work with AI models and have to read recently published research to work with the latest developments in the field. Do a quick keyword search on papers related to the subject. So much of it is completely useless. It is clearly written to keep people busy, earn credentials, boost credibility. Papers on the most superfluous and tangential subjects just to have a paper to publish. Very little of it is actually working with the meat of the matter: The core logic and mathematics. It is trend following and busywork. Your sentiment is controversial because people are religiously loyal to the intellectual authorities of these credentialed systems, but a lot of published research does not push any boundaries or discover anything new. This paper seems to be an exception. I would argue that a lot of the research published in the social sciences also falls under this category. It is there so that someone has a job. I'm not discrediting social sciences in general, am just pointing out that there is a lot of ways to creatively take advantage of academia to secure a paycheck and this is certainly exploited. The kneejerk reaction to reasonable criticism just proves this point even further.
- graemep 1y ago
  I think the benefits greatly outweigh any dangers. I far prefer to read something like this than something written up by a journalist. > I acknowledge that not everyone involved in science has or wishes to acquire the skills needed to write blog-form content. They should. If your research is publicly funded you should make it as available to be public as possible. Academics should be able to communicate, and I very much doubt they are unable to acquire the skills > 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 Given how bad the measures of impact and the distorted incentives this produces I am not even sure this would even be a bad thing. If nothing else it improves transparency about what they are doing, again with public money.
  - quantum_magpie 1y ago
    >They should. If your research is publicly funded you should make it as available to be public as possible. Academics should be able to communicate, and I very much doubt they are unable to acquire the skills So in addition to being: -professional researchers -professional teachers -professional project managers -professional budget specialists -professional scientific writers -a failed idea away from losing it all They should also become: -professional PR managers -professional popular writers While still being paid (poorly) for a single job of all of these.
    - graemep 1y ago
      They should not being doing a lot your first list, and should have specialist help available for some of the rest. I am not suggesting they become PR managers, and the writing skills I am suggesting they acquire is simply that required to do things like blogging. I am not suggesting they achieve the standards a professional writer would have, just the ability to write clearly and make the effort to do so. Academics should be highly skilled people. In fact a lot of the problem is not they cannot do it, but of distribution. A lot of universities to have academic blogs and subsites about departments and individuals research. Its not anything like as visible as the journalists write ups about it
    - Elextric 1y ago
- rendaw 1y ago
  Communication skills are often missing in engineering too, but I think I'd argue they should be required - all work is fundamentally collaborative. Being able to effectively communicate to different people on your team, outside your team, managers, business people, etc is not optional and more than once I've seen things get stalled or turn into a mess because communication didn't happen. STEM is often a haven for neurodivergence but I think communication skills are something that is largely learned and not something that comes naturally for everyone. People who are good at communicating spend a fair amount of effort rewriting, trying different wordings, different introductions, getting feedback from people, etc. FWIW I see things like being able to sell a proposal, managing expenses, planning, etc as optional - these are good to have, but someone else can do them if you can communicate well, but in the end the only person who can communicate what you're thinking is you.
  - jasonm23 1y ago
    "Required" is a bit of a gatekeeper, while I agree good communication skills are valuable. Blog form content in particular, _requires_ proofing, re-editing, and so on and there's a whole skill set which contributes to makes such content sticky and engaging. You also seem to be confounding your own point. Indeed all work is collaborative, someone who lacks communication skills, will generally team up with other collaborators who can bring those skills to bear.
- gms7777 1y ago
  A few years ago, at least in my field, there was definitely a trend of people at least doing twitter threads explaining the key findings of their papers. It's obviously less in-depth than a blog post would be, but it was still usually a far more accessible version of the key ideas. Unfortunately, this community has basically dissolved in the last few years due to the changes in twitter and to my knowledge hasn't really converged on a new home.
beloch 1y ago
It's far preferable to having university PR people write some hype piece. Where they'd spend the whole time gushing about it being a world first, paradigm shifting, blah blah blah, the author focuses on things that actually matter. e.g. Is it testable? Yes, here's what to look for.
fracus 1y ago
Yeah, wow. That was great. His solution seems so simple and clears all the previous model's problems. I guess every black hole could contain its own universe.
- NKosmatos 1y ago
  Too bad the author didn’t explain more the concept of the “parent” universe and how our own (contracting & expanding) universe got created. Nice things to read/consider/ponder late at night :-)
  - csours 1y ago
    Unfortunately, it appears that the universe does not care very much about human satisfaction. Fortunately, other humans do.
    - ivape 1y ago
      What makes you say that? This feels like a very convenient planet.
- alkyon 1y ago
  I would be surprised if the size doesn't matter in this case. On the one hand, tiny black holes tend to be rather short-lived. On the other, I suppose some threshold mass/energy is needed to generate a child universe that doesn't collapse immediately.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  Ironically that was basically the first thought many had when it was clear we cannot explain what happens in the edge case of a singularity. It was always "perhaps another unsiverse or a way into a parallel one". It still leaves a lot of questions though, especially if you try to marry quantum mechanics to these makroscopic models. Where did the initial black hole come from and should a corresponsing anti matter black hole exist?
  - 1y ago
torial 1y ago
There used to be a common practice of scientists writing summaries of their research for lay people. I think they viewed it as their civic duty. I had a collection called the World of Physics which included essays written by various scientists. I originally had it in the 90s and found it again after many decades. Would highly recommend. https://www.amazon.com/World-Physics-Library-Literature-Antiquity/dp/0671642162 https://www.amazon.com/World-Physics-Library-Literature-Anti...

n2d4 1y ago

Yea, 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 ago
  Can you cite your sources please?
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    Most jobs are really not important either, they just keep people busy. Do you need sources for this claim, too?
    - lukas099 1y ago
      Yes. 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 ago
        I’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.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Sounds like you're describing the principal-agent problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
        HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
        > But you can’t quit them because of worker’s laws This is generally not a problem in the US.
    - daedrdev 1y ago
      The Bullshit Jobs jobs theory has been widely discredited by researchers, but you probably won't believe them. Consider that most business is B2B so it makes sense that the casual observer would not know what it's for. Additionally, the Bullshit Jobs book relies on a magazine survey, actual studies shows that the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless is very low and also decreasing over time
      - dguest 1y ago
        I think you're right, but it's not how I remember it for some reason. I didn't read the book "Bullshit Jobs" [1] as an attempt to quantify how many jobs were bullshit. The author was an anthropologist with no interest in quantifying the economic impact. It's lots of amusing anecdotes from frustrated workers and a nudge for people to question the efficiency of capitalism. At least that's how I read it. But reading the wikipedia page it sounds like a lot of people fixated on the idea that society could double its efficiency. Hard to know if there's a correct interpretation of the book's claims, and unfortunately we can't ask: the author David Graeber died in 2020. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
        johnisgood 1y ago
        > while he claims that 50% of jobs are useless, less than 20% of workers feel that way, and those who feel their jobs are useless do not correlate with whether their job is useless. (Garbage collectors, janitors, and other essential workers more often felt like their jobs were useless than people in jobs classified by Graeber as useless.) Well, again, there is a huge difference between one's own perception of their job being useful or not. I believe garbage collectors, janitors, and nurses, are not examples of useless jobs. Useless jobs are mainly in the office, called "paper pushers". I mean come on, have you not been to any jobs (nor heard of any) where you had to pretend you were busy just to get paid? I saw plenty of cases.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        > the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless Worth to point out that there is a huge difference between people considering their jobs meaningless AND their job being meaningless, though.
    - hippari2 1y ago
      Ever since I first read this theory, I have always been wondering how credible is this. Where have you heard it from ?
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        I am not sure, but probably related: https://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/ https://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-....
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    There have been countless academics who have discussed this topic, occasionally not behind closed doors. Regardless, it’s certainly my observation as well.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Countless academics have leveled targeted criticisms at various practices and gone on to back those up. They are targeted, actionable objections; not vague blanket dismissals.
  - NL807 1y ago
    Sabine Hossenfelder has a few comments on this topic in her YT channel.
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      Sabine Hossenfelder cast herself out from academia and took a recent turn to monetizing laundering peoples vague understanding string theory is a waste of time (cannot be proven empirically) into academia is doing fake work and if they'd apologize and own up to it, maybe we would trust them again. Most famously, through a bizarrely written letter from an anonymous whistleblower pleading that she not topple the academy, as it would ruin the lives of thousands of academics making up things to get grant money to survive.
      - adwn 1y ago
        I can't parse either of your sentences. Maybe you could introduce some intermediate variables, or use parentheses to give them structure?
        refulgentis 1y ago
        I can't parse what you're asking for :| Ran my comment + your reply through AI and asked it to respond to you, as I do want to help. Let me know if there's other instructions I can give it, it may have taken your variable ask too literally? :( Here's its output: Sabine Hossenfelder, after distancing herself from academia, has recently pivoted to monetizing a specific narrative: Let’s define Premise A as “String theory is a waste of time because it cannot be empirically proven.” She generalizes from Premise A to a broader Claim B: “Academia, more broadly, is producing fake work.” Her argument seems to imply that: If academia were to publicly acknowledge this, or apologize for promoting unverifiable theories, then the public might begin to trust it again. This general thrust reached a kind of crescendo in one of her more notorious moments: — An oddly written letter, allegedly from a whistleblower within academia, essentially begging her not to “bring down the system.” The letter’s rationale? That dismantling the status quo would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of academics who, according to the letter, are fabricating just enough plausible-sounding work to secure grants and stay afloat.
- tracerbulletx 1y ago
  This is a good thing. This is where the economy surplus went. Not to 5 days of leisure for everyone. But to jobs that keep us occupied, engaged, and motivated but aren't strictly required. The alternative is just either starving everyone to death, except for a few elite and their slaves, or everyone being bored out of their minds and wondering what the point of life is.
  - inimino 1y ago
    If the solution is ever more manuscripts that solve no interesting problems and that nobody will ever read, let's find another solution.
    - hyperhello 1y ago
      Why would you assume someone would write the paper at all, if the problem was uninteresting?
      - inimino 1y ago
        For one thing, because I watch the AI and ML categories on arxiv.org.
      - friendzis 1y ago
        That's literally the basis of employment. People write papers, they get paid. Science does not get done.
        melagonster 1y ago
        The funding for scientific projects comes from applying for grants from the government. Researchers must write proposals to demonstrate the value of their projects. After the project is completed, they are also required to submit a final report to verify that the project was indeed carried out as approved by the supervising authority.
  - superb_dev 1y ago
- bdbenton 1y ago
  It's a controversial observation, but it is very true. I work with AI models and have to read recently published research to work with the latest developments in the field. Do a quick keyword search on papers related to the subject. So much of it is completely useless. It is clearly written to keep people busy, earn credentials, boost credibility. Papers on the most superfluous and tangential subjects just to have a paper to publish. Very little of it is actually working with the meat of the matter: The core logic and mathematics. It is trend following and busywork. Your sentiment is controversial because people are religiously loyal to the intellectual authorities of these credentialed systems, but a lot of published research does not push any boundaries or discover anything new. This paper seems to be an exception. I would argue that a lot of the research published in the social sciences also falls under this category. It is there so that someone has a job. I'm not discrediting social sciences in general, am just pointing out that there is a lot of ways to creatively take advantage of academia to secure a paycheck and this is certainly exploited. The kneejerk reaction to reasonable criticism just proves this point even further.
graemep 1y ago
I think the benefits greatly outweigh any dangers. I far prefer to read something like this than something written up by a journalist. > I acknowledge that not everyone involved in science has or wishes to acquire the skills needed to write blog-form content. They should. If your research is publicly funded you should make it as available to be public as possible. Academics should be able to communicate, and I very much doubt they are unable to acquire the skills > 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 Given how bad the measures of impact and the distorted incentives this produces I am not even sure this would even be a bad thing. If nothing else it improves transparency about what they are doing, again with public money.
- quantum_magpie 1y ago
  >They should. If your research is publicly funded you should make it as available to be public as possible. Academics should be able to communicate, and I very much doubt they are unable to acquire the skills So in addition to being: -professional researchers -professional teachers -professional project managers -professional budget specialists -professional scientific writers -a failed idea away from losing it all They should also become: -professional PR managers -professional popular writers While still being paid (poorly) for a single job of all of these.
  - graemep 1y ago
    They should not being doing a lot your first list, and should have specialist help available for some of the rest. I am not suggesting they become PR managers, and the writing skills I am suggesting they acquire is simply that required to do things like blogging. I am not suggesting they achieve the standards a professional writer would have, just the ability to write clearly and make the effort to do so. Academics should be highly skilled people. In fact a lot of the problem is not they cannot do it, but of distribution. A lot of universities to have academic blogs and subsites about departments and individuals research. Its not anything like as visible as the journalists write ups about it
  - Elextric 1y ago
rendaw 1y ago
Communication skills are often missing in engineering too, but I think I'd argue they should be required - all work is fundamentally collaborative. Being able to effectively communicate to different people on your team, outside your team, managers, business people, etc is not optional and more than once I've seen things get stalled or turn into a mess because communication didn't happen. STEM is often a haven for neurodivergence but I think communication skills are something that is largely learned and not something that comes naturally for everyone. People who are good at communicating spend a fair amount of effort rewriting, trying different wordings, different introductions, getting feedback from people, etc. FWIW I see things like being able to sell a proposal, managing expenses, planning, etc as optional - these are good to have, but someone else can do them if you can communicate well, but in the end the only person who can communicate what you're thinking is you.
- jasonm23 1y ago
  "Required" is a bit of a gatekeeper, while I agree good communication skills are valuable. Blog form content in particular, _requires_ proofing, re-editing, and so on and there's a whole skill set which contributes to makes such content sticky and engaging. You also seem to be confounding your own point. Indeed all work is collaborative, someone who lacks communication skills, will generally team up with other collaborators who can bring those skills to bear.
gms7777 1y ago
A few years ago, at least in my field, there was definitely a trend of people at least doing twitter threads explaining the key findings of their papers. It's obviously less in-depth than a blog post would be, but it was still usually a far more accessible version of the key ideas. Unfortunately, this community has basically dissolved in the last few years due to the changes in twitter and to my knowledge hasn't really converged on a new home.

beloch 1y ago

It's far preferable to having university PR people write some hype piece. Where they'd spend the whole time gushing about it being a world first, paradigm shifting, blah blah blah, the author focuses on things that actually matter. e.g. Is it testable? Yes, here's what to look for.

fracus 1y ago

Yeah, wow. That was great. His solution seems so simple and clears all the previous model's problems. I guess every black hole could contain its own universe.

NKosmatos 1y ago
Too bad the author didn’t explain more the concept of the “parent” universe and how our own (contracting & expanding) universe got created. Nice things to read/consider/ponder late at night :-)
- csours 1y ago
  Unfortunately, it appears that the universe does not care very much about human satisfaction. Fortunately, other humans do.
  - ivape 1y ago
    What makes you say that? This feels like a very convenient planet.
alkyon 1y ago
I would be surprised if the size doesn't matter in this case. On the one hand, tiny black holes tend to be rather short-lived. On the other, I suppose some threshold mass/energy is needed to generate a child universe that doesn't collapse immediately.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
Ironically that was basically the first thought many had when it was clear we cannot explain what happens in the edge case of a singularity. It was always "perhaps another unsiverse or a way into a parallel one". It still leaves a lot of questions though, especially if you try to marry quantum mechanics to these makroscopic models. Where did the initial black hole come from and should a corresponsing anti matter black hole exist?
- 1y ago

torial 1y ago

There used to be a common practice of scientists writing summaries of their research for lay people. I think they viewed it as their civic duty. I had a collection called the World of Physics which included essays written by various scientists. I originally had it in the 90s and found it again after many decades. Would highly recommend. https://www.amazon.com/World-Physics-Library-Literature-Antiquity/dp/0671642162 https://www.amazon.com/World-Physics-Library-Literature-Anti...