I honestly appreciate that we don't understand the universe. Theories keep evolving and that's what science should look like. If we can't question "established" scientific theories, we have abandoned the scientific method. Strong theories hold up. Like the theory of gravity, although even there I'm not convinced we have a complete understanding. Good answers are good, but who knows what we might be capable of if we keep pushing for more.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
341 points (85.3% liked)
Space
10036 readers
430 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
π Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh sure but when I say this I'm "too high" and need to "quit smoking." I been told y'all.
Chat is this real?
π’π’π’Turtles π’π’π’
But if this leaves anyone in a philosophical mood, I leave this video on a comic book villain that unpacks into a metaphysical wonderment.
So it might be turtles all the way down?
black holes all the way down?
Explains the warped timeline
much larger universe than this? are you fucking kidding? we might just as well die then.
we might just as well die
Because it's not what you expected?
I can assure you, whatever you expected is just as strange and absurd as this.
Let me put this in another way:
To think that time might have not existed, then started up at some point, breaks my brain.
To think that time might go on for infinity in the past, with no starting point, also breaks my brain.
No because it is just so crushingly huge. I mean maybe humanity could understand and even partially explore the universe at some point. But trying to understand a universe within a universe, fuck that. Whose to say it is not a sequence of universes?
Or you might just as well live given the absurdity of it all.
eh why not ...
You both make excellent points!
Pulls deeply on the cigarette, stomps it out and then waves the pistol's barrel towards a dark corner of the room.
"Now get into the box..."
if you can call that living
Iβve always believed that our entire universe is the inside of a gravastar in a 4D-universe. Our universe is the false vacuum inside it, permanently in superposition. Weβre just one of the infinite potential states the wave function of the Bose-Einstein condensate inside could collapse into.
Oh, and gravity as a force would be the result of the 4D gravastarβs centrifugal force as it rotates on 2-axis, and that would be why we canβt figure it out.
At least thatβs what Iβve always imagined reality. (Also known as my rambling brain doing its best in the moments between wakefulness and sleep)
Edit: tbh 5D/3-axis makes more sense
You might like this video by PBS Spacetime. I'm not sure how this relates to your centrifugal force idea, but we do actually know a few things about "what gravity is" that are really interesting.
Oh, Iβve seen this before! Although my interpretation is purely spatial and lacks any temporal component aside from the act of rotation itself. So itβs still applicable.
The way things are going, more like we got tossed in an endless trash can. I donβt blame the Vulcans.
Last few paragraphs...
Shamir noted that an alternative explanation for why most of the galaxies in the study rotate clockwise is that the Milky Wayβs rotational velocity is having an impact on the measurements.
βIf that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe,β said Shamir.
"The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.β
That's leading me to think that that's actually the more probable explanation, and the black hole idea comes in a distant second in terms of probability, but is much more attention grabbing/sensational/click-baity.
The black hole idea is actually weirdly solid, its a case of the maths says we definetaly should be but observation and just intuition says its crazy. If you consider the event horizon to be the surface of a volume, black holes get less dense as their radius increases, you can have a black hole with the same density as rock, water, air, even the miniscule density of the gas in a vacuum, so long as teh black hole is large enough. The average density of the observable universe is higher than the density of a black hole the size of the observable universe so technically we should be in one.
Technically this doesn't have to affect anything, larger black holes can have gentler gravity gradients and nothing in physics actually demands all the mass inside be concentrated at a miniscule central point, it just works out that way for black holes of the size we've seen so far. So the entire universe could be a black hole (assuming its finite) with the event horizon just being functionally inacessable and the black hole so large that internal conditions aren't really influenced in any way.
The mass of the visible universe is apparently enough to make a black hole with an event horizon ten times larger than the visible universe's. I don't understand how that hasn't happened already, but apparently it just doesn't look like it's happened ("unless...").
It could totally have happened already and we just don't notice, though there's kind of a critical size where a black hole just gets infinitely big as adsorbing a stray hydrogen atom in the vacuum of space increases its radius enough to encompass multiple new hydrogen atoms and the whole thing just expands to encompass the entire universe. Kind of when everything is a black hole then nothing is a black hole sorta situation.
Surely at some point it stops being useful to apply the same terminology to such vastly different concepts. If the universe is a black hole and Sagittarius A* is a black hole then "black hole" doesn't communicate anything effectively outside of extremely niche astrophysics conversations.
I'm mostly curious how higher dimensioal space could explain (perceived) expansion. Like: maybe we live in a 3d bubble embedded in an n-d space which keeps on collapsing, pouring more and more energy into our "universe"...
Black hole cosmology suggests that the Milky Way and every other observable galaxy in our universe is contained within a black hole that formed in another, much larger, universe.
Forgive my dumb question. Why would we see the universe as expanding then?
Since
Black holes are incredibly dense objects where immense gravity crushes matter into an infinitesimally small point called a singularity
There's debate on the existence of singularities and certain shapes of the universe can give the impression of accelerating expansion
Well, they still have a mass (and some form of "size") iirc, that can expand as they absorb things
I like these observations and theories, despite them being the ramblings of very ignorant creatures (all of us as a species).
This said, we don't have evidence to suggest we aren't the most intelligent creatures to ever exist. It seems very, very unlikely... But, such is the rarity of life so far as we've observed.
So... These are lots of fun! If not for any other reason, than for the reason of humbling us all.
Ok yea that makes sense because weβre in hell
I recommend critically reading the paper. It is quite accessible to those with college-level science background.
Most importantly, it is still highly controversial whether this galaxy rotation direction bias actually exists. If you look at section 4 of the paper, the author is debating against different groups that did similar surveys and found no bias. Someone needs to actually work through this author's methodology as well as those of other groups and figure out what is going on.
If there is indeed a bias, that is super exciting! An anisotropic universe due to being in a black hole would be a very cool explanation. But given the ongoing debate, a general-audience publication like Independent presenting this rotation bias as a given fact is very poor journalism.
Bruh I'm just trying to get through the workday I don't need this on my mind!
The Frensh-German TV-Channel Arte published a Documentary about the theorem, that we are probably living in a black hole. According to them its based on the work of Nikodem Poplawski (mathematician and physicist). It was a kinda nice theory and seemed appealing. But Im no scientist and I have no idea about higher Math and Physics. Sadly, on the German Arte-TV-Site the video is not avaible anymore. (According to German Law public-TV-Channels arent allowed to keep their Videos up online unlimited) https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/101940-002-A/leben-wir-in-einem-schwarzen-loch/
But I assume there are other sources, probably even in other languages.
view more: next βΊ