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.
The theory challenges many fundamental models of the cosmos, including the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
It also provides the possibility that black holes within our own universe may be the boundaries to other universes, opening up a potential scenario for a multiverse.
Mine blown 🤯
Yes, it’s called Trump and it’s sucking up fucking everything.
i know trump and elon are big topic now, but didn’t expect to show up in an astronomy post
Back in the days we just make yo mama jokes.
Yo mama’s so fat, her mass affects the spin of galaxies! Or her mass is affecting our perception of those galaxies. We’re not sure yet.
Yo, can we get like 5 minutes to revel in the non-political, world-changing good news?
To quote a wise man:
Can’t i just have one article that doesn’t mention that fat sack of shit. This is actually really interesting physics, and you had to go and ruin it.
Obama turned up, too, but it was funny.
The real Trump Derangement Syndrome is when you can’t stop posting his name even on completely unrelated topics.
Mine blown 🤯
Using data from Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope, researchers at Kansas State University in the US discovered that the majority of the galaxies were rotating in the same direction.
This goes against previous assumptions that our universe is isotropic, meaning there should be an equal number of galaxies rotating clockwise and anticlockwise.
“It is not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations,” said Lior Shamir, associate professor of computer science at Kansas State University.
“One explanation is that the universe was born rotating. That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole.”
yeah it’s just the most headline grabbing possibility
@[email protected] (moderator), can we have a rule about clickbait headlines.
I’m kind of getting sick of these pop-science articles that exagerrate everything times 1000x in the headline. In any other discipline that kind of hyperbole would be considered a lie.
My theory is that the Big Bang is local and there have been other big bangs outside our observable universe and our entire existence is inside a multi trillion year expanding and contracting space foam
Big Crunch and white holes and all that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(time)
The concept of recreation is pretty old
Dude, after reading the paper from start to finish, this whole thing seems off.
- The guy’s an associate professor of computer science and has no degree in cosmology, but he’s talking about cosmological implications of these findings.
- Every single paper cited supporting his argument was written by himself (in exactly one case, it was written by himself and a coauthor). In total, Shamir cites himself 106 times.
- Numerous other papers by numerous other authors (some mentioned by this paper in attempted rebuttals) find this not to be the case.
- It violates the cosmological principle used by major and highly successtul models of the universe.
- The way he performed this analysis was an algorithm which he wrote. When he cites papers that have used this algorithm, he only cites himself, indicating no other academic in the world has thought this algorithm is seriously useful for this application.
- When speaking to The Independent (which is of really middling quality), instead of speaking about the data itself and how he arrived at it, he (again with no formal background in cosmology) starts talking about the most clickbaity possible implications of this data.
It’s totally possible Shamir is right and that there really is a massive bias. That would be extremely cool. However, he’s published numerous papers on this over the last decade yet still seems to be the only one who agrees with it. Which to me is highly unusual.
Can I just say your thoroughness here is a real fucking impressive skill. Thank you for sharing.
This is what I missed on r/science. The thorough paper critique! Thank you so much!
Thanks for doing the news org’s job for them. They either don’t know how or aren’t willing to do it.
Thanks for breaking that down, I wish newspapers or even BBC News did this. They do now have BBC Verify but its never super clear of their findings, certainly not in the format that you’ve just used. Perhaps theirs should be called BBC Balance. The only thing I would say with regard to your first point is that I’m not against the idea that any individual could make a breakthrough. At least with regard to theory.
We already know that throughout the history of cosmology, whole experts have been wrong when a new discovery is made. E.g. Highly likely that not everyone believed that Earth was centre of the Universe (like the earlier science communities claimed). The issue with this guy is he’s using his own biased ideas and data and some people believe whatever is printed in a newspaper must be right.
Only silver lining is at least there clickbaity headlines give the public something more substantial to think about for 60 seconds instead of what the next Kardashian is up to…
To be sure, I agree with your interpretation of your first point. I was establishing that as part of a pattern rather than an end-all “you can’t do science without a degree in that field”, especially since applied CS is monumentally important to every field. It’s that lack of formal education in cosmology combined with a pattern of only citing oneself for support of one’s arguments combined with this being a long-held and broadly successful assumption combined with numerous cosmologists using a variety of methodologies which they think are acceptable combined with no cosmologists choosing to use his algorithm combined with ostensibly using his time with The Independent talking almost exclusively about deep cosmological implications.*
* This last one could be The Independent’s fault; it’s technically possible Shamir talked their ear off about CS stuff and methodology and previous attempts and what he wants to do going forward but The Independent only ran with the juicy sfuff.
This guy reads.
I have always wondered about this and it’s always been the question I would want to ask neil degrasse tyson about if I ever met him… I never realized there was a term for it or even other people believed it…
My other crazy theory is that we are always in a state of jumping between realities… As a state of self preservation… We exist in the reality where we keep living. With the possibility of realities being infinite and the possibility of a subset of those infinites being basically the same as the one you’re in…
Who knows maybe it’s just a reassuring way to be happy knowing that one day your actually going to die instead of all those times you have felt like you have almost died being truly a time you have died…
Our consciousness continuously transferring between realities to stay alive is kinda crazy ngl
What’s the big question you’ve always wondered about though? It’s not clear from your comment
If the whole observable galaxy is inside a black hole…
Black holes get bigger and expand as does our observable universe… I always wondered if the two were connected…
But from reading everything in this post it seems like the theory doesn’t hold up… But also who knows…
I like my other theory better anyways.
If we are going based off of evidence to support it, I wouldn’t go crazy for your other theory either
As I understand it, the idea of Quantum Immortality is a bit more nuanced then that. It’s not that you would be “jumping between realities”. It’s more-so that, as the reality where you are alive is the only one you can possibly be aware of, any reality where you would die simply wouldn’t be seen by you. The splits where the potential to die exist would only be seen as “close calls” to the consciousness that is you. It’s more so a resolution of logic than a cross-dimensional mind swap. A pop-culture example of this is sort of seen in
Movie name
The Prestige.
Extra Major plot spoiler
Quick summary - in the movie, Hugh Jackman’s character gets access to a machine that instantly duplicates him, which he uses for his magic shows. To resolve the “small” issue of there being an ever multiplying amount of him, he has a mechanism to immediately drown the version of him on stage when they disappear as the other version reveals himself elsewhere in the theater. At one point, he talks about how he was always terrified that he would be the one being drowned. There’s a few interesting things about this particular line, the most pertinent one being that he is never the version that gets drowned, evident from the fact he is talking about it. Obviously this is just fiction, but I think it’s a good illustration of the concept. There are also a lot of details left nebulous, possible details of which could suggest Destructive Teleportation instead.
Man, this is so cool!!
Why aren’t we all spaghetti, then?
All the matter in our universe was sucked into the black hole and then coalesced into all the forms that exist now. (Presumably, and if this hypothesis is true)
deleted by creator
It is an observation consistent with black hope cosmology, but other explanations are possible too, so nobody is claiming it’s proof
… black hope …
Thanks Obama
Yeah!
Some of the findings match a pre-existing pipe dream but this boring alternative is pretty neat too:
The latest findings do not provide definitive proof of black hole cosmology, with more evidence required to fully understand the implications.
Shamir noted that an alternative explanation for why most of the galaxies in the study rotate clockwise is that the Milky Way’s rotational velocity is having an impact on the measurements.
“If that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe,” 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.”
That alternative idea seems like an Occam’s Razor type explanation. I like it.
Okay so I have a basic understanding of orbital mechanics, I would say astronomy and astrophysics is a hobby of mine, and my content subscription list is filled with space nerds talking about nerdy space stuff.
I do not understand how the rotation of the milky way could be making it seem as though other galaxies are rotating a specific direction.
I understand if you spin in place and are looking at something above you that’s spinning in a certain way, it might appear to spin the opposite way it is relative to the floor, because you’re spinning faster. However, my problem understanding stems from the fact that the milky way is huge and we are rotating around a very large axis, not at a rate that my common sense tells me would be noticeable.
Maybe I’m just not giving NASA and ESA enough credit for their measurement capabilities, but I don’t get it.
And maybe I’m so far off base someone is face-palming into their screen in disappointment that I could choose be so wrong.
If anyone could explain, or post a link to a space nerd talking about nerdy space stuff thats relevant to the answer, please edumacate me!
Yeah it’s like either I don’t understand 3D space or they don’t. Clockwise to what? What if you go stand on the South Pole, does it all reverse? Maybe they need to read Enders Game again.
It’s funny how often surprising results are just “ah shoot my bad. Tool is busted”
The research was published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in a study titled ‘The distribution of galaxy rotation in JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey’.
Do you have a link to that research?
Kurtzegat (spelling debatable) did a video on this almost a year ago in case anyone wants a 10ish minute simplified version
Whoa.
If this is true, this makes sense to me. Right or wrong, I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of infinite, endless space. Like God just existing for all time, never having a start or a stop is a cheap way of admitting we just don’t know, and may never know. Why does “God” and the universe get to be treated differently than everything else? Things come from other things.
I digress. I have often daydreamed that our universe only appears infinite because it’s actually a sphere or a bubble, and what we see as infinite is merely a reflection of our finite space like an infinity mirror would look.
But those ideas are just that: daydreams. If anything, I hope that the scientific and academic communities can keep open minds and not dismiss these radical ideas because it contradicts their religious fervor.
God was created by man. Change my mind.
“God” is what people use to explain the unexplainable. Change my mind.
I’ve kinda thought that were some n-dinsnsion universe getting sucked into an n-dinsnsion black hole, and what happens as that universe crosses the event horizon is the big bang, the arrow of time. And all of the matter and forces that have them appearing to interact is just some beautiful n-dinsnsion spaghettification.
The universe isn’t expanding; all mafter within it is shrinking, being crushed. all matter appears to be accelerating further and further away because, well, it is. From our perspective.
I’ll go back to ripping my bong now.
Dude
If this is true, do you think time exists outside the outer black hole? In the least, I might imagine it’s moving very differently than our interior universe.
Idk I’ve thought about it and it’s like, if time is created by the passage into the event horizon and it’s an artifact of the n-dimension universe it can both imply that this n-dimension universe doesn’t have “time” as we know it and our experience of it is, again, artifactual. However, the “movement” of this universe toward a n-dimension black hole kind of implies time, at least in the sense that we understand it (physical state changes of matter. It was there, now it’s here! How’d it happen? Time!)
So… “Yes” but I would wager if my stoner theory holds gravity (pun intended) that whatever “time” exists in a parent n-dimension universe is not the same as time as we understand it? But maybe it is! Idk. Someone ask Neil degrasse Tyson why I’m wrong. And dont let him fool you that my model wouldn’t account for red and blue shifts as our little matter-islands shrink and “accelerate away” from one another. It do! 🙂
Also fun to ponder with my silly stoner model here is that… Well… There is a supermassive black hole at the center of most galaxies… Like it’s some sort of iterative and exponentiating recursive process? 😵💫
Go Wildcats!
Sooooo the expanse was right?
the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe
I always thought this was the consensus, but turns out, it was just as far back as we can go where physics as we know it work. Not everyone claimed that nothing existed before.
nothing existed before
Thing is that there’s no “before”, because time itself started with the big bang. The questions to ask are: is there anything other than our universe, and does that even matter? If nothing can get in or out of our universe, then there’s no way to prove the existence of anything outside of it and there’s zero impact one way or another.
Time as we know it started. That doesn’t mean time as we don’t know it wasn’t around.
“Thing is that there’s no “before”, because time itself started with the big bang.”
Good to know modern science is catching up to fourth century theology:
“There was therefore never any time when you had not made anything, because you made time itself.”
Saint Augustine posited in “Confessions” that before the Universe was created there was no time. Also, that the Universe was not made in any “place” because no place existed before the Universe existed(space is also created with the Universe).
For exact argumentation you can refer to the text, I suppose(chapter XI). I just think it is fascinating that conceptual tools and concepts developed by theologians and philosophers more than 1500 years ago are still incredibly useful.
For exact argumentation you can refer to the text, I suppose(chapter XI). I just think it is fascinating that conceptual tools and concepts developed by theologians and philosophers more than 1500 years ago are still incredibly useful.
They’re not even a little bit useful. Using tautilogical arguments like this are actually a disservice to science, and anti-thetical to the scientific method.
I fail to see how this is tautological.
How is that antithetical to the scientific method? Science uses routinely uses manufactured conceptual instruments, theoretical objects and even applies mundane concepts in a metaphorical way. Science is a struggle to create theoretical frameworks that explain observations, and this is why in times of crisis science often turns to philosophy, since old frameworks might not be doing it anymore and philosophy provides new ones, as it happened with the crisis of classical mechanics, for example. This is a relevant example because it relates to the issues of space being absolute or relative and time as well.
If i have to explain to you why this is not helpful to science, I’m not sure you’d be convinced regardless of what I have to say.
That why our timeline seems to keep radically changing?
Bruh I’m just trying to get through the workday I don’t need this on my mind!
