top 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 91 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I'm pretty sure that kind of knowledge falls under the "huh. Neat." category anyway. It's the kind of knowledge that, while a cool thing to learn, will have absolutely no bearing on my current life, and is not going to be likely to have any practical applications for many years to come.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it’s hard to get too worried about specifically how the universe will collapse in 50 million years when I’m not sure our society will exist in 50 years and I’m not sure I will have a job in 5 months.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 102 points 11 months ago (35 children)

    fact... potentially...

    Yes, we're going to ignore a sensationalist conclusion that is not supported by evidence.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] 55 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (32 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (22 children)

    So like I've been vaguely paying attention to them finding larger, farther, and more red-shifted galaxies. I've been suspecting the universe is a black hole for a while now.

    What if: information CAN survive the event horizon... but only if it hits the accretion disk from the side at the perfect angle to spiral in. That's why JWST is finding galaxies that are larger, older, and much more common than we'd anticipated -they're extra-universal objects.

    What if dark energy is a function of hawking radiation... and the expansion of our universe is driven by primordial black holes? Maybe hawking radiation is the black hole equalizing the same anti-matter/matter asymmetry we've observed in our universe.

    I'm sure someone formally educated on the subject can debunk those ideas tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 11 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (6 children)

    Love PBS Space time!

    So like in your opinion, tldr, do you think it's explicitly impossible for light to survive entering a black hole such that it could reproduce an image of whatever it reflected off?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    From which point of view?

    If the observer is inside the event horizon of the black hole, they'll see the light as normal. There's nothing special about the event horizon for the observer or the ray of light.

    If the observer is outside of the black hole, they won't ever see the light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I'm talking as an inside observer. Like what if spaghettification = red shift and the "too large, too old, to developed" galaxies like MoM-z14 detected by JWST are actually from outside our universe's event horizon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    It's definitely possible in the case of a real black hole. I think it's unlikely to apply to the model we're talking about - the spaghettification would have to happen outside the event horizon, and that only applies to very small black holes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    It explains subjective experiences?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Sounds a lot like pseudoscience unless I am missing something major

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The hardest to understand thing about physics is that for those of us who got off on an earlier offramp it absolutely feels like this is an entirely different category of thing than a statics or dynamics class. Like, it feels like a lot when you go from "here's how ballistics, tension, and springs work" to "this is how electricity flows through metal and what forces make it do so". Then eventually, people who majored in that shit wind up doing this shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    De sitter space and anti de sitter space took me a while to grok as it relates to all this stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Here's a far out idea based on absolutely nothing:

    What if all of the information imprinted on the event horizon of a black hole is duplicated and becomes the stuff that creates a new universe inside of a black hole.

    Like. Everything that ever hits the event horizon are the pieces from which a new universe is built

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (3 children)

    it's certainly an interesting theory, it makes me wonder, if that actually were the case, how much time has passed outside of the black hole? Like is the universe space significantly younger outside of the black hole? Is matter less finite? It really makes the mind wander

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I mean technically the sentence structure says that:

    • Fact: NASA has done something
    • That something: potentially discovering that we are in a black hole

    So in a sense there is no contradiction there with the words "fact" and "potentially". Although there is a relevant possibility for confusion of what is being stated as a fact, so your point stands. I just like nitpicking on technicalities :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Just tell your landlord we're in a black hole and the rent doesn't matter.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 76 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    As smug and pretentious Neil deGrasse Tyson is, he said it best, something along the lines of: What does this mean to us in the grand scheme of things? Nothing.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 19 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    In the grand scheme of things:

    • We're turbofucking the climate, even though we've understood the warming effects of CO₂ for 170 years, and had viable solutions to climate change for like 50. And yet we're increasing CO₂ emissions year after year. It's not certain the human civilization as it currently is will survive the next century.
    • We're throwing non-biodegradable plastics everywhere, even though we've known for like 50 years that it is devastating for many ecosystems and human health.
    • Capitalism is squeezing the global working class ever harder with each passing day, and yet class consciousness is not growing fast enough, despite us scientifically understanding the unsustainability and evils of capitalism for like 160 years.

    So yeah, in that grand scheme of things, making models of the larger universe is not actually that important. First we need to make use of the discoveries made way over a century ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I am able to find joy in science and life in general. I will state it in a different way: this is not something the average person needs to worry/think about, unless they are interested themselves.

    The original tweet (or whatever this is) has the same energy to me as "are we just gonna ignore ?". For people who are interested: they are likely already aware; for people who are not interested: it's safe to ignore it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    It's been a while so I'm a little hazy on the details, but in one of the Culture books by Iain M. Banks there's a part where a bunch of Minds (for those unfamiliar: kind of beyond godlike artificial intelligences that run a utopian civilization, the eponymous Culture) are talking about how they can create simulations within simulations so perfect that it would be impossible to tell if you were in one, and what if their entire reality was just one in a long chain of nested, perfect simulations? But in the end they come to the conclusion that there's no way to tell and nothing they can do about it anyway, so they might as well just get on with it lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    Link to this? I had not heard that.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    Here's a summary

    It's by no means confirmed. It's one theory out of many. The JWST data shows galaxies have a significant preference to all spin the same way. Mathematicians say this would be evidence in favor but not fully confirm the black hole theory (also called the Swarthschild theory if you want to DDG more). Some suspect it's bias from the rotation of our own galaxy affecting the data and they plan to calibrate more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Do you have an essay you could throw at me, or some kind of video that explains it in reasonably understandable detail?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I follow PBS Spacetime already, so chances are I've seen the videos you're thinking of and can't remember them offhand. I'll give your link a read tho, thanks!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Anton Petrov also has good analysis of papers like that, here's him explaining why no the observation does not support the black hole cosmology as long as we're not cherrypicking https://youtu.be/xXSV9JaWxCE

    Doesn't mean the paper is shit, it always helps drawing parallels to notice differences and refine our equations, but the sensationalism must prevail for all the news sites reporting on it I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I wonder if there are rules pertaining to black holes existing within other black holes. If black hole A is inside black hole B, does it make sense to have a meaningful distinction between black hole A and the other stuff inside black hole B?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago*

    It's not a thing. Or, like, this theory ("black hole cosmology") has been around for ages, it's not broadly accepted and I can find no evidence of NASA publishing anything explicitly in support of it. The pop-sci articles are all linking back to this study which decidedly does not make the conclusion the universe might be inside a black hole.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    Wow crazy I'll make sure to adjust my schedule

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Shiiiit lexx was right

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Does that mean we're having spaghettification for dinner?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Makes sense. Everything in this universe sucks. Ha. I'm funny. Anyways...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    What's this discovery?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Didn’t she-ra do something like that?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago
    [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    abolish all rent. see the cat. seriously!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Is it weird that I'm rooting for the black hole to destroy me?

  • source