The actual model is just that, a model. It says that our universe can be described the same way as we describe the information systems around an event horizon, and in many cases in physics, if a system can be described using the same model it is often related, connected or the same in some way.
It’s not sensationalist, but it’s highly misinterpreted and turned into sensationalism.
It doesn’t really give us anything meaningful that we can use or understand the universe better just yet, but maybe someday someone will figure out something that helps us better understand where the universe came from. That’s all. It’s a very convincing theory if you learn about entropy and Planck-scales and event horizons around black holes, but it’s not even sensational on its own.
I would consider backing up and learning to walk before you try to run, once you grasp the really difficult concepts surrounding this, when the concepts combine these much larger models it feels a lot more humbling and awe inspiring.
One of the better entry level docu-series is The History of the Universe series on youtube for when I just want to listen to the stories of how and what we learned and it goes over the materials many times in pretty simple ways. Since every idea and discovery is connected there’s no wrong place to start.
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.
I’m fairly educated but not formally on the subject.
The idea is this: conservation of information does not break anywhere we’ve ever observed, and much of physics is based around the immutable “conservations.”
This means, whatever happens, whatever billiard ball configuration of particles things are in, you can calculate where they came from and how they got to that position. It’s very basic to causality and we’ve never seen exceptions to it, aggressively so, the universe tends to do funny things just to preserve this kind of law. Except in black holes. All of our understanding about them says that even if they evaporate over vast time scales, there’s still no way to “reassemble” the information that comes out, it’s a cosmic information laundering service, which breaks a very fundamental conservation.
So, the idea is… what if information is preserved around the “edge” where we see particles slowly fall in and seem to take a literal eternity to fall in? What if that somehow retains all the knowledge of everything that fell in? When you calculate this idea up, you get a sea of information happening at the smallest possible scale, where information gets packed into it’s densest possible state. And it also lines up almost exactly with what we imagine the universe to look like when describing it entirely as an information system. What’s really happening in this situation is the universe is basically a flat “sheet” of information “bits” that curls around you, you the observer is sitting right into the center of this parabolic “lens” that assembles this information into a 3D picture of the universe. (See: holographic universe principle.) This idea that our observation of the universe is the center of a projection somewhat explains a lot of things like subjective experiences, a lot of quantum weirdness and what’s happening at the quantum foam scale.
To understand this better you have to discard your understanding of locality and that your perceptions and experiences of time and space are largely illusions made by your brain to explain the input you’re getting. There is no real such thing as “That thing is far away” it’s more like “there’s an informational rule how much time/space is between this event and that event.”
I recommend PBS Spacetime, they did a lot of videos about the idea but they can be a bit heavy if you haven’t caught up a little on entropy and time/space diagrams and black holes.
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.
Oh it definitely is an exercise of stepping outside everything we know and are familiar with. This is a product of the objective fact that our entire experience of the universe is basically a lie. We have brains that have given us an interpretation of everything that’s happening, and we couldn’t exist without that interpretation “flattening” something far larger and more complex for us, but it’s still not a complete picture.
Example: we think of things as solid objects, we think of a “chair” and point it and say “chair” when in reality it’s mostly empty space, made up of a vastly complex system of interacting fields waving and vibrating in a way that makes a brief, passing shape of a “chair.” All those waves and interacting fields are “chairing” for a moment, taking up a shape that pushes against our mostly-empty space bodies that are temporarily “bodying” for a moment and makes it seem like we’re sitting.
Another: time is gravity. Gravity is time. This one baffles everyone because it’s also equally accurate to interpret time as a dimensional vector, but that’s only one interpretation and in the real universe, there’s no law or rule saying that things can only have one accurate interpretation. How is gravity time? Well mass effects the flow rate of time, so clocks run at different rates closer or further away from something like a giant rock in space. But the issue is objects traveling (everything is traveling) have to compensate for this change and get pulled towards the rock. The same way as if you lay a stick across a flowing stream, the center of the stream flows faster than the banks, so the stick gets pulled sideways.
This is a fantastically subtle effect, which is why it takes a whole-ass planet to generate an area where things stick to the ground, but you can fight the effects of an entire planet simply by lifting your foot.
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?
Light that falls over the edge of the event horizon cannot get out again. The distortion from the mass of the black hole is simply too steep and we’ve taken pictures of the dark shadow that this creates in space.
Once over the event horizon, the light still “exists” in some manner, but has been effectively cut off or removed from ever interacting with our universe again, so it also doesn’t really exist anymore.
The real problem happens further down towards the singularity where space pinches off. That part of the gravity well is so steep and trails off to forever, that light/particles cannot actually enter it, the same way that it’s hard to send a probe to orbit the sun or mercury because it takes so much slowing down. As a circular orbit shrinks, the momentum of the orbiting object is conserved so the object speeds up, as it speeds up, it gains enough velocity to push back out. So particles approaching infinite velocity do… what? We don’t know, but this is just one of many places where our physics and understanding breaks down because it approaches infinities.
Light that falls over the edge of the event horizon cannot get out again
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.
There is a whole area of cosmology that looks at large-scale event horizons, they can exist in many forms, and yes the “drop off” point over large scales is somewhat similar but those far away galaxies actually appear more like what we would see if a galaxy was falling into a black hole, IE: they turn red and seem to fade away… this is because we stop receiving new information from them because the expansion of space is faster than new photons can reach us… this doesn’t cut off sharply, it’s just the last photons stretch out so wide that the waves may as well be flat.
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.
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.
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.
Sort of. It’s a very loaded topic but it may help explain how different observers can see different outcomes from some events. (See: barn door/ladder problem) because it reframes every observer as their own center point of a hyperbolic projection, collapsing waveforms as that center point observes events in their own sphere.
You might be missing a lot, if you’re interested get started with shows like PBS Spacetime and History of the Universe on youtube for some simple groundwork to understand a lot of the science behind these ideas.
Bro what if… *hits blunt* What if the whole universe was like… like a quantum multiverse and shit- like, if we were supersymmetrically entangled without own spacetime strings
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
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
It really helps to understand that a black hole isn’t a point in space, it’s a point in time. After you cross an event horizon, you will see the universe outside accelerate as you fall closer to the singularity, in fact if you didn’t get stretched out into particles you would see the whole universe disperse and grow cold suddenly.
If you’re across the event horizon of a supermassive black hole you have more space and time to play with and can exist for a very long time before you get pulled to spaghetti, but that singularity is always in your future. It doesn’t matter which direction you fly or whatever tools you use, the center is always in your future.
The difference between rates increases as the observer’s spacetime gets more and more distorted, so the closer you get to the black hole the faster times moves outside the event horizon.
To the extent that from the singularity itself, the outside universe is equally stretched out to forever since all reference frames are equal, so outside a literal infinity passes… and no we don’t have any understanding what this means, only that it seems to exist like this and this is one of many problems we still have with our understanding of black holes.
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
Yes, we’re going to ignore a sensationalist conclusion that is not supported by evidence.
The actual model is just that, a model. It says that our universe can be described the same way as we describe the information systems around an event horizon, and in many cases in physics, if a system can be described using the same model it is often related, connected or the same in some way.
It’s not sensationalist, but it’s highly misinterpreted and turned into sensationalism.
It doesn’t really give us anything meaningful that we can use or understand the universe better just yet, but maybe someday someone will figure out something that helps us better understand where the universe came from. That’s all. It’s a very convincing theory if you learn about entropy and Planck-scales and event horizons around black holes, but it’s not even sensational on its own.
My intellect level is dipshit: do you know a good source for me to study and learn about this?
I would consider backing up and learning to walk before you try to run, once you grasp the really difficult concepts surrounding this, when the concepts combine these much larger models it feels a lot more humbling and awe inspiring.
One of the better entry level docu-series is The History of the Universe series on youtube for when I just want to listen to the stories of how and what we learned and it goes over the materials many times in pretty simple ways. Since every idea and discovery is connected there’s no wrong place to start.
Copied from another user in this thread
I would suggest nasa.gov
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.
I’m fairly educated but not formally on the subject.
The idea is this: conservation of information does not break anywhere we’ve ever observed, and much of physics is based around the immutable “conservations.”
This means, whatever happens, whatever billiard ball configuration of particles things are in, you can calculate where they came from and how they got to that position. It’s very basic to causality and we’ve never seen exceptions to it, aggressively so, the universe tends to do funny things just to preserve this kind of law. Except in black holes. All of our understanding about them says that even if they evaporate over vast time scales, there’s still no way to “reassemble” the information that comes out, it’s a cosmic information laundering service, which breaks a very fundamental conservation.
So, the idea is… what if information is preserved around the “edge” where we see particles slowly fall in and seem to take a literal eternity to fall in? What if that somehow retains all the knowledge of everything that fell in? When you calculate this idea up, you get a sea of information happening at the smallest possible scale, where information gets packed into it’s densest possible state. And it also lines up almost exactly with what we imagine the universe to look like when describing it entirely as an information system. What’s really happening in this situation is the universe is basically a flat “sheet” of information “bits” that curls around you, you the observer is sitting right into the center of this parabolic “lens” that assembles this information into a 3D picture of the universe. (See: holographic universe principle.) This idea that our observation of the universe is the center of a projection somewhat explains a lot of things like subjective experiences, a lot of quantum weirdness and what’s happening at the quantum foam scale.
To understand this better you have to discard your understanding of locality and that your perceptions and experiences of time and space are largely illusions made by your brain to explain the input you’re getting. There is no real such thing as “That thing is far away” it’s more like “there’s an informational rule how much time/space is between this event and that event.”
I recommend PBS Spacetime, they did a lot of videos about the idea but they can be a bit heavy if you haven’t caught up a little on entropy and time/space diagrams and black holes.
Pshhh I figured this out when I was 17 the first time I took psychedelics.
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.
Oh it definitely is an exercise of stepping outside everything we know and are familiar with. This is a product of the objective fact that our entire experience of the universe is basically a lie. We have brains that have given us an interpretation of everything that’s happening, and we couldn’t exist without that interpretation “flattening” something far larger and more complex for us, but it’s still not a complete picture.
Example: we think of things as solid objects, we think of a “chair” and point it and say “chair” when in reality it’s mostly empty space, made up of a vastly complex system of interacting fields waving and vibrating in a way that makes a brief, passing shape of a “chair.” All those waves and interacting fields are “chairing” for a moment, taking up a shape that pushes against our mostly-empty space bodies that are temporarily “bodying” for a moment and makes it seem like we’re sitting.
Another: time is gravity. Gravity is time. This one baffles everyone because it’s also equally accurate to interpret time as a dimensional vector, but that’s only one interpretation and in the real universe, there’s no law or rule saying that things can only have one accurate interpretation. How is gravity time? Well mass effects the flow rate of time, so clocks run at different rates closer or further away from something like a giant rock in space. But the issue is objects traveling (everything is traveling) have to compensate for this change and get pulled towards the rock. The same way as if you lay a stick across a flowing stream, the center of the stream flows faster than the banks, so the stick gets pulled sideways.
This is a fantastically subtle effect, which is why it takes a whole-ass planet to generate an area where things stick to the ground, but you can fight the effects of an entire planet simply by lifting your foot.
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?
Light that falls over the edge of the event horizon cannot get out again. The distortion from the mass of the black hole is simply too steep and we’ve taken pictures of the dark shadow that this creates in space.
Once over the event horizon, the light still “exists” in some manner, but has been effectively cut off or removed from ever interacting with our universe again, so it also doesn’t really exist anymore.
The real problem happens further down towards the singularity where space pinches off. That part of the gravity well is so steep and trails off to forever, that light/particles cannot actually enter it, the same way that it’s hard to send a probe to orbit the sun or mercury because it takes so much slowing down. As a circular orbit shrinks, the momentum of the orbiting object is conserved so the object speeds up, as it speeds up, it gains enough velocity to push back out. So particles approaching infinite velocity do… what? We don’t know, but this is just one of many places where our physics and understanding breaks down because it approaches infinities.
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.
There is a whole area of cosmology that looks at large-scale event horizons, they can exist in many forms, and yes the “drop off” point over large scales is somewhat similar but those far away galaxies actually appear more like what we would see if a galaxy was falling into a black hole, IE: they turn red and seem to fade away… this is because we stop receiving new information from them because the expansion of space is faster than new photons can reach us… this doesn’t cut off sharply, it’s just the last photons stretch out so wide that the waves may as well be flat.
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.
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.
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.
It explains subjective experiences?
Sort of. It’s a very loaded topic but it may help explain how different observers can see different outcomes from some events. (See: barn door/ladder problem) because it reframes every observer as their own center point of a hyperbolic projection, collapsing waveforms as that center point observes events in their own sphere.
Sounds a lot like pseudoscience unless I am missing something major
You might be missing a lot, if you’re interested get started with shows like PBS Spacetime and History of the Universe on youtube for some simple groundwork to understand a lot of the science behind these ideas.
Makes perfect sense from a physics and relativity standpoint but I was interpreting your messages from an everyday human perspective standpoint
De sitter space and anti de sitter space took me a while to grok as it relates to all this stuff
I’m sad that you said the word “grok” and got downvoted for it. Way to ruin a nice old word, Elon.
Grok remains a perfectly cromulent word, imo.
Even if everything Elon touches isn’t
Bro what if… *hits blunt* What if the whole universe was like… like a quantum multiverse and shit- like, if we were supersymmetrically entangled without own spacetime strings
Hear me out:
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
Seems like every cool physics theory turns out this way. Physics: it exists for the masses to misinterpret
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 universespace significantly younger outside of the black hole? Is matter less finite? It really makes the mind wanderIt really helps to understand that a black hole isn’t a point in space, it’s a point in time. After you cross an event horizon, you will see the universe outside accelerate as you fall closer to the singularity, in fact if you didn’t get stretched out into particles you would see the whole universe disperse and grow cold suddenly.
If you’re across the event horizon of a supermassive black hole you have more space and time to play with and can exist for a very long time before you get pulled to spaghetti, but that singularity is always in your future. It doesn’t matter which direction you fly or whatever tools you use, the center is always in your future.
Right but outside of the black hole, outside of it’s gravity well, time moves faster. So how much time would have passed outside the black hole?
The difference between rates increases as the observer’s spacetime gets more and more distorted, so the closer you get to the black hole the faster times moves outside the event horizon.
To the extent that from the singularity itself, the outside universe is equally stretched out to forever since all reference frames are equal, so outside a literal infinity passes… and no we don’t have any understanding what this means, only that it seems to exist like this and this is one of many problems we still have with our understanding of black holes.
I mean technically the sentence structure says that:
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
In a sense removed from context, yes.