251–260 of 647 posts
Interesting 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.
Oh 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 sc…
There was a thread a while ago on here where the hypothesis for why things are moving apart at faster rates is down to time moving at different speeds due to mass. So time in the void between galaxies is moving quicker than time in the galaxies, but on the grand scale of the universe the differences as up a lot. I quite liked this theory, think is make sense, at least from my very limited understanding of this stuff.
What is preventing the collapse in this case and results in a bounce?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have no theories working at those conditions. Wiki says > General relativity also predicts that the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity of infinite density and temperature.[6][obsolete source] However, classical gravitational theories are not expected to be accurate under these conditions, and a quantum description is likely needed[7]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr…
> [6][obsolete source] I didn't know but apparently wikipedia treats old sources as obsolete, doesn't matter if there's new information or not that would make it obsolete. I wonder if any sources supporting the notion that the earth is round must be updated every couple of years with a new source or study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Added. 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.
So many books, so little time...
This 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.111.1...
I 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?
Oh 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 sc…
The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole.
> and the fixed density of our observed universe
Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed.
You really want to be thinking about this in terms of entropy and not matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First define consciousness such that the definition differentiates you from a computer with a webcam.
You can measure various aspects of a computer. You can't measure consciousness.
I'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 th…