Slashdot Mirror
Study: Our 3D Universe Could Have Originated From a 4D Black Hole
New submitter TaleSlinger sends this quote from Nature:
"Afshordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole. In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi's team modeled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand. The authors postulate that the 3D universe we live in might be just such a brane — and that we detect the brane's growth as cosmic expansion. 'Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,' says Afshordi."
Turtles all the way down.
His noodliness wishes to inform you that string theory is closer to the truth but the full truth is that the universe is made of strings of spaghetti.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
... but what do I know?
I personally like the turtles explanation better than spaghetti but I'm just along for the ride.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
seriously, it's time
So whatever a 4D star is, when it explodes there is a 3D layer that represents the event horizon. We live in this layer. One side of the layer is a 4D black hole, and the other side of the layer is some other kind of nothingness. Yeah?
Is there someone here I can offer monetary compensation to for them to comprehend this summary for me?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
An explanation of why my socks go missing and where they went.
If I understand correctly, the universe we see is the inside of a black hole, and the big bang is the time that black hole created its singularity.
Now I can imagine that in each black hole we see there is another universe. Or is it always the same universe that is found inside all different black holes? And I still have trouble to imagine what happens to someone taking a dive into a black hole. Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
It's a news story on their website talking about a preprint paper posted on Arxiv.
#DeleteChrome
What's their point? There's not a singular thing I can see there.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"I just had an awesome idea. Suppose the entire observable universe exists as a 3d brane on the edge of a 4 dimensional black hole."
"Okay. What would that imply?"
"I dunno."
".. we happen to live in the causal future of the classical big bang singularity .. we outline a novel mechanism through which any thermal atmosphere for the brane, with comoving temperature of 20% of the 5D Planck mass can induce scale-invariant primordial curvature perturbations on the brane, circumventing the need for a separate process (such as cosmic inflation) to explain current cosmological observations ..."
I've been saying just this for years.
The galaxy is on Orion's Belt.
In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary
How is a sphere two dimensional? Surely they meant circular?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Perhaps as computer interfaces advance so we can use supercomputers seamlessly without even knowing it concepts such as this will become easily understood. Currently I'm hard pressed to figure out how we could test these theories let alone make use of them. We need to upgrade our brains...
What is the difference between Branes and String Theory? String Theory seems to have about 10 dimensions or so. Do theories with Branes have only 4 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 time)? I thought they were related. I realize this is all mathematical speculation but I wonder.
Not sure that the idea of an event horizon as being a 2D object in 3D space is valid. The Event Horizon is not a surface, it's the description of a place in space where information can not pass, because you can't pass information beyond the speed of light. There is no physical surface there. It's not like you could put your hand against this and pull back a stump.
The next question is are the 'D's between the 4D space as a source, and the resulting 3D space related or concurrent? I.e. does our 3D space x,y,z match to some combination of the earlier univers' w,x,y,z? or are we talking about completely separate t,u,v,w generating our x,y,z?
Alternatively is this an example of the string theroy's multiple dimensions being a common source of dimensions for each univers, and that (at least potentially) one could "translate" from one univers to the other by matching up dimensions in one universe with dimensions in the other, through the quantum foam? I can't see the translation into 4 dimenssions would work well for us, any more than I suspect that people would find it disconcerting if 2D cartoons sudenly popped up in our 3d univers. There would be a dimension of the resulting reality missing from the perspective of the translated being. Whether that would mean that the being would cease to exist, would have to learn new ways of representing reality in their mind, or if they would be subject to influences that they wouldn't be aware of because of how someone from that dimension set would nottice the missing dimension in the translated being. (Perhaps not an issue as there are sufficent dimensions actually available in the quantum foam that if you translated to a 4d univers, you would simply pick up the needed dimension on the fly. It may even be that our experiences in 3D space are simply the illusions of dreams in the 4D space, and we exist in both places already.
You never know...
Perhaps I shouldn't answer your question because it is completely off topic, but that argument is just horrible. How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Not knowing some things is OK. It's certainly better than fooling yourself.
This explains Tilman's crest, then.
http://video.adultswim.com/tim-and-eric-awesome-show-great-job/the-universe.html
The article is about string theory (I think more properly called "M-Theory" these days but not sure). It is the outcome of a lot of very crazy math and complicated equations that are hard to visualize.
But, what this theory sorely lacks is evidence. By which I mean any evidence at all. It is popular in the physics world because it can resolve the discrepancies between quantum mechanics (for which there is quite a lot of solid, verifiable evidence) and general relativity (for which there is also quite a lot of evidence). Everyone wants to be aboard THAT train...so it gets a lot of attention... ...but it still lacks evidence. And without the evidence it is just so much hot air.
So, don't lose any sleep over this one. The proof just isn't there.
Dimension of us never got around.....
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
That means that... our whole solar system... could be, like, one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being! This is too much! http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-n_RQb4tJmhY2n/animal_house_1978_smoking_pot_with_professor_part_2/
There's been some speculation that the universe is a 3D hologram on a 2D surface. So maybe it could be 3D universes all the way down.
1) There is not necessarily a beginning to all things. Weird things happen when we come close to the big bang, and time might exist only within our own "bubble".
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
No, actually, I dont see at all. Someone call in an autistic savant to deal with this.
There's actually some math that proves this theory.
Baseless claim/theory with zero evidence + inability for anyone anywhere to disprove it = book deal + huge $$$ grant + discovery channel special
You know, like the theory that the entire universe is a gigantic is a simulation similar to the matrix. There was a very elaborate, college-funded experiment to test that actually (as seen on slashdot)
The main problem I have with this the 4D universe could (and would) still interact with our 3D hypersphere. Consider a black hole in our 3D universe. It has an event horizon, the 2D surface of which is analogous to the 3D hypersphere. Mass from our 3D universe does cross through that surface and has a profound effect on the structure and behavior of whatever mass is "living" in that boundary. Thus we would expect to see objects instantly materialize as they cross into our 3D hypersphere, and interact with our mass, etc. Even if somehow that 4D black hole is totally, completely insulated from the rest of its 4D universe, and thus there currently isn't any 4D mass breaking the plane of the hypersphere, we should still see remnants of where 4D mass had passed through at some point in the past. For example it would have had gravitational effects, displaced and interacted with mass, etc.
As far as I'm aware, cosmologists have never observed any structures in the universe which could only be the result of some totally external influence. At some point a chunk of 4D mass would have had to have intersected the brane and punched a hole through a galaxy or imparted more mass or energy in some crazy way that would stand out like a sore thumb.
Better known as 318230.
And if so can they eat each other and collide like galaxies.
"Afshordi's team realized that..."
Here. Let me correct that: "Afshordi's team imagined that..."
"Thought experiments" are NOT experiments, NOR are they "science". When Einstein used so-called "thought experiments" he was using them as a teaching tool to explain his theories, but we have now a large pool of people who live on research grants doing "theoretical" science and lots of "thought experiments" (which used to be called "day dreaming" and was a good way to avoid doing real work). I refuse to recognize any of this drivel as "science" until it actually involves experiments and data harvested from those experiments... until then it's just subsidized day dreaming with as much value to society as children putting on costumes and playing "make believe". Why four dimensions and not ninety four or perhaps three hundred four? Even if some wild imagination convinces you that at least four dimensions are needed and some razor tells you to keep it simple (and you therefore restrict your daydream to four) that does not mean the real universe conforms to your desires... there could be exactly 62 dimensions for reasons you will never even be able to imagine. The pseudo-intellectual garbage being peddled to the public as "science" these days is truly mind blowing... and meanwhile there are an uncounted number of real, solid scientific problems to be solved by means of actual science that would improve the lives of millions of people. IMHO Afshordi and team deserve no accolades and no particular attention; they'd benefit society more as day laborers picking fruit or as janitors mopping hospital floors. I love SCIENCE but I detest quasi-scientific junk being passed-off as something of value and tarnishing the reputation of real science. There's been so much of this junk showered upon the public that the public now has a lower opinion of completely valid and serious science and scientists than it had four or five decades ago. One big step backward for science, one grand faceplant for all mankind.
Bah Humbug! (sad, weak smile)
I'll readily admit that I don't know everything. But, the theory that our universe could simply be a very large, complex computer simulation has been around for a while and scientists have come up with ways to potentially test various aspects of it.
If the universe is a simulation, I suppose what we call God would be the creator. So to answer your question:
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
That's an interesting question, but one that is irrelevant. God would exist before and after our universe, outside of what we call time and space, yet could still be created and also create everything that we could possibly know.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
'Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,'
I am sure a black hole forming would count as a big bang..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Supernatural = anything goes. That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
Though time is commonly refered to as the 4th dimension, its one way nature sets it apart from geometric space which we free to move about and back at will. I believe this is because it is made out of energy, motion. Therefore change is primary and our endeavor to order it results in time. Subjectively we could consider taste, smell or color to be extra dimensions. Quantumly? perhaps spin, charm, truth &beauty could be considered extra dimensions.
That argument is useless because:
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
AND
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
Any hints to the nature of a non-causal existence?
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
The most comprehensible way for something be exempt from causality is for it to be eternal and supernatural. Add sentient and you've arrived at Deism. That is, if you need a first cause, something like a god is a parsimonious explanation.
God is the 4D dude who bought the Make Your Own Universe Kit and set it running in his mom's basement.
If you tick him off by not kissing up to him etc., he'll delete you from his "ant farm". So, sing those hymns, guys! "You are the grandest and mightiest, oh wondrous Father of all we know!"
He can see you yanking off also, and will blind you if caught; he hates the yanking while he's having sandwiches, ruins his appetite.
Table-ized A.I.
The simulation argument is interesting, but what created the outermost level? I've tried, but I can't conceive of a pair of computational systems that can simulate each other.
That's not an argument for existence, it's just another definition of God. A God so defined may or may not exist, and it may or may not have any resemblance to the other metaphors the word 'god' is used for.
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
As physics currently stands, that's right, the problem is under-constrained. So it can help to consider Occam's razor and religious literature that claims access to the supernatural.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Well unless physics comes up with something better, the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental. So God isn't B.O., but certainly an entity made of food could qualify.
I'll stick with the turtles story, thanks anyway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In the 4D universe is a book called Cubeland and the readers struggle to understand how creatures might exist in a hypothetical space limited to just width,height and depth. Ie. How their digestive tract is just a tube through them.
I'll give it a shot - my theology degree doesn't get used here much. Calling the unknowable first-cause 'God' is all fine and good from a philosophical standpoint, but the God of most religions is usually much more personally involved in their creation than that so you're not really talking about the same sort of 'God' that modern religions are talking about. Religion as we know it today (apart from Evangelical America) descends from transcendent ideas of God, and replaced the previous dominant model a couple of thousand years ago in most places.
Calling the things we don't understand "God" hasn't been widely popular since the stone age, and almost no-one does it anymore. (At least, no-one who is being taken seriously by theology journals. If you live in North America YMMV.)
--M
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
I think it's useful to first pin down God solely by the properties required to make a first cause. That established can help those who wish to pin It down further through reference to media and personal experience.
One could extrapolate that the 4D universe is just a black hole in a 5D universe then. Maybe go up to as many dimensions as String theory expects.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
I was thinking about that 2D hologram theory too. Your idea makes me start to think that maybe all of the "big bang black hole math" actually boils down to nothing -- and -- we're just in a cycle of 3D big bangs/big crunches.
The math makes me hopeful that intelligent creatures like us might be able to holographically survive into the next cycle !
A God that is a regular animal that happens to fly and have pasta feathers wouldn't be able to create existence. So thinking about first cause does help us both define God and understand the nature of being.
The "time arrow" is just as much a part of existence as matter, energy, the spatial dimensions, and the laws of physics. ;)
The "creation" that you speak of can be at the end of our time line.
The day that we completely explain our universe, may be the day that we create it.
We can be our own god. (or think that we are
Oh -- and Godel's theory doesn't apply because the Universe contains multiple sets of uncountable infinity.
That's a beautiful idea . . .
In order to exist . . . the Universe *MUST* be uncountably infinite.
This is an illustration of where mathematical models can run amok.
Every kind of model has its limits. Bohr, for example, envisioned atoms as a nucleus of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons, with orbiting electrons. The model works well because it's something people can grasp. But the model has its limits, and there are many aspects of quantum behavior that cannot be explained by the Bohr model. The model is still useful because it does lead to many accurate scientific predictions.
A newer mathematical model, quantum mechanics, seeks to be even more accurate in its predictions than Bohr's model. It succeeded in many ways, and like the Bohr model, has led to many interesting discoveries. But it too has its limits.
In pure mathematics, exceeding three dimensions is effortless. Calculations involving four or more dimensions can easily be solved. But just because the mathematical model can do it, doesn't mean that the physical reality it attempts to model, can also do it. A model is designed to represent reality, but it is not itself reality. I suspect that all such mathematical models of the universe, which point to other dimensions, will eventually be shown to be purely mathematical.
Answer me that smart guy.
So the big bang is just a mirage?
Maybe it's all just sabotage!
(with many apologies to the Beastie Boys - this was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read the mirage line)
Does anyone have a good response to the first-cause argument for the existence of God(s)? That is, is the creation of the ultimate progenitor of our universe from no-thing/no-laws best explained as being the act of an eternal and powerful supernatural entity, outside causality, that can be defined as "God"? Or is it easier to accept that something has always existed, perhaps allowing the definition of "always" to go beyond our time arrow?
If you are trying to prove or disprove God (or some sort of creator) using science, then you have made a mistake.
This is it. Then we get into Branes.
It gets the name from 'membrane'...sort of like a defined more by its edge than what it is made of or what is inside of it...
I don't buy it. Not to be reductive but I think the whole '4-D' thing is hogwash and a lazy way to keep adapting the same equations. IMHO.
**maybe** you can say 'time' is a 4th 'dimension' but only abstractly...and really time is just our perception of change in the universe...how forces change matter...if there was no change we'd have no 'time'...just like when 'time' is frozen on Star Trek
Nope. Branes are kicking the 'ex nihilio' can further up the publishing and thesis chain. "Where did the branes come from?"...'super branes' of course...it's a cop out...kill me now
Black Holes are bubbles of nothingness in quantum foam. The really are true 'black bodies' were the event horizon destroys everything and scatters the forces left behind across it's plain which makes it bigger.
Believe it or not, what I just typed goes against alot of Stephen Hawking's work on Black Holes but it's true. We've been chasing our tails with over-analyzing black holes b/c the implications of them being true 'black bodies' means that the universe dies a heat death, meaning that **other** parts of Cambridge dogma are wrong.
Physics needs get over this notion that when cosmology can't explain something we just gather it and put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it and call it a theory.
**SOMETHING** started the universe...who cares if it was God or something else...I hate that people use science to prove or disprove something like religion...it's just as bad either way...misuse of science...like using a slide rule as hammer
If we can accept that the universe exists without demanding to know how it started we can get a wholly better **description** of how it behaves...how black holes behave, for example...
instead we chase our tails around imaginary dimensions...branes are a pointless theoretical persuit
Thank you Dave Raggett
If you are trying to prove or disprove God (or some sort of creator) using science, then you have made a mistake.
"Prove" is a strong word, applicable only in mathematics. Prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt, no. Evidence and likelihoods, yes.
thanks man...I mean thanks for reading and taking my idea seriously
i am a lifelong scientist and i'm trained academically as a research designer and do mostly HCI and cybernetics work but I have always loved this stuff!
i **love** what we are learning, especially in the last 10 years, but it seems something rotten out of Cambridge has an axe to grind
Thank you Dave Raggett
By way of analogy, could the event horizons of black holes in our own universe host a 2D universes?
Why would an N dimensions black hole create a N - 1 dimensions universe? why not create an N dimensions universe or a N - 2 dimensions universe?
Riddick-ulous idea if I say so myself
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
All they talk about is branes......
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Mind you, I just thought about this as an uneducated random thought. I certainly don't understand the physics well enough to make a real comment.
With that said though, I've wondered for a while if we're just experiencing what its like to be on the inside of a black hole thats suddenly expanded due to some sort of fluctuation in gravity.
For all we know, its an illusion and we're still in a singularity from a higher dimension.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
Please stop quoting hypothesis that have absolutely no proof as fact. And apply this to the rest of your post.
Just because Hawking said it, doesn't mean its absolutely fact.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why does there need to be an explanation of where your supernatural entity (or the parent poster's) comes from?
People used to argue between the Steady State Universe and the Big bang version, and they assumed that the Steady State needed no prior causes, as it was just around forever. The Big Bang version had an origin and so it presumably needed an explanation for that origin. Good, hard physics of the 1880s through 1980s was perfectly fine with the idea that not all things need a prior cause, and was willing to look at the evidence for either sort of universe.
People are discussing your supernatural entity, or various other, not necessarily supernatural things, because the evidence showed a type of universe that seems still to most people to need one. (There are more complex models of the basic Big Bang theory where there really isn't a clear point and moment of origin - that's what Dr. Hawking tried to do in "Brief History of Time" for one example - Hawking's book was an attempt to descibe a Big Bang-like that doesn't need God, or a non-supernatural precessor, such as a black hole in a prior 3 dimensional space expanding to create a new space-time, and an infinte series of such priors, or various other things people have proposed as non-supernatural origins.).
Anyway, if God is illogical by your argument, all those physicists who wasted the 20th century deciding between Big Bang and Steady State should have just rejected the Steady State before any actual evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background, was in. If not having a prior cause automatically invalidates the science of a hypothetical, then the Steady State was never a proper scientific theory to begin with.
Whee! We can totally reject the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis and call all those people who don't fools, but only by declaring that science can decide questions by abstract logic without resorting to actual evidence and experiment anymore. It still amazes me that Dr. Sagan was so totally against a "Priesthood of Science", but relentlessly pushed this same first cause argument, without ever seeing that it sets up precisely that priesthood - one where the scientists don't need to question their axioms. If you truly want free and open scientific enquiry, you can't start from some extra assumptions such as "Everything science considers as a hypothesis must have a prior cause".
Who is John Cabal?
Popper's criterion of demarcation: "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations"
Where did this 4D supernova originate from ? A 5D universe ? This is fun but to my untrained eye, fairly pointless.
That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
If you can accept the existence of a God that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity), why can't you accept a universe that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity)?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
... hurts my brane.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
Even if you model the universe as to require a god, and it is shown as the only possible model, you still may not have a god because the universe is still not bound by that model and we cannot prove for sure any mechanism used by the universe to follow or break any model, since we are inside it. In other words, the universe can break logic because logic is derived from it, not the other way around, so it is logic who has to match, or be incomplete.
OTOH
Even if you prove that the universe has always existed and always will and track down every single particle's interactions to disprove any external influence, you still may have a god, since creation can happen with time and not at some point in time, which is a dumb idea.
Dumb, because it requires time as an absolute above god, in which god operates. Which religions suppose that? The main ones explicitly declare the opposite, because, if fake, they were conceived by people able to think more clearly than our generations. If no religions suppose something, then you havent disproved any of them.
God, residing beyond time, creates an universe with an infinite time in both, or n directions. Like man, residing outside Geometry, thinks up a plane with an infinite surface. Big deal.
It is dumb because the simple experiment of imagining an abstraction usually forces an independent timeline. (example, chess has the sequence of moves as time. Chess is a good example because it has timeout. Even the timeout is an atomic event instead of a chunk of time. You could sure start recording players' names, time taken for each move, but that is irrelevant metadata just as the weather that day, the color of a player's tie, how many times his wife cheated on him... because the abstraction named 'a game of chess' does not need any of it to properly respect all the chess rules)
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
In no particular order:
Hawking proved... No, he did not. Hawking has a mathematical description that's consistent with quantum mechanics and general relativity, but that doesn't mean the universe actually works this way. There have been a large number of highly promising theoretical constructs that have never been observed in reality and are believed to not exist. Hawking radiation may be one of them. Most physicists believe Hawking radiation exists and is a real phenomena, but it has never been observed in reality. (We have, however, observed analogues to Hawking radiation from acoustic 'black holes'.)
Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not. Those jets are made of matter that was about to cross the event horizon until they suddenly and violently thought better of it. The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle. One of the billiard-balls rockets across the event horizon and the other uses its kinetic energy to escape from the accretion disc. (This is handwaving a lot of astrophysics, but is basically accurate.)
the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not. Black holes have to obey the cosmic speed limit just like everything else. Also, not all black holes possess angular momentum. General relativity gives perfectly satisfactory predictions for stationary black holes.
The information, that is the quantum state, of mass and energy that is eaten by a blackhole is later ejected as what could be termed high energy 'noise'; x-rays and gamma rays. Not in the slightest. Hawking radiation is about the longest-wavelength (which means lowest-energy) stuff in the universe. The reason for this is really simple: although it started off as unbelievably energetic, it had to expend virtually all of its energy escaping from where it was created a nanometer beyond the event horizon.
No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)
Creating a new definition for God and debating Its existence does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God according to any of the other definitions.
Unless all of the definitions are metaphorical. In which case the question of existence becomes trivial.
Does anyone have any serious articles that say such things could exist?
> There was once no time in our universe.
Time is part and parcel of the universe. For the universe to exist there must be time, and visa-versa.
> Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
We aren't talking about spooky action at a distance. It's more about stuff like radioactive decay.
> the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental
Eternal implies infinite time. For that to exist it means everything would have already happened. It's an impossible concept.
The idea of the principle of causality is in itself contradictory to the existence of a first cause.
The whole thing is a self-contradictory and incoherent mess.
Observation fo graity and magnetics to obey inverse square laws from atomic to galactic scales. Some deviances such fast galactic rotation can be explained by a inverse law devience or hidden matter. Some of these hyperdimensional brane theories predict a deviance of gravity at microscopic scales.
Don't black holes in our Univers continue to expand? The mass these things chomp up isn't all emmited by gamma rays right? Isn't that mass contributed to the 2d space on the event horrizen eventually or does it never technically get there? I guess my question is, if this guy is correct...where is all that additional mass? If we're surrounding a 4d black hole on the event horrizon why aren't we happily getting more and more mass as it chomps away?
Yes, specifically a puff of logic, I believe the consensus currently is.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The abundances of hydrogen, helium and lithium. The cosmic microwave background. The maximum age of stars. The observably different conditions at high red-shift. The agreement between observed large scale structure and that expected in a Big Bang + dark matter + dark energy universe.
(Disclaimer - I haven't read the article. Maybe they discuss this.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
can't understand..
May as well invoke magic, this hypothesis has not a shred of proof nor verifiability; and its core purpose, to explain a uniform CMB, is actually falsified by recent measurements.
I can accept both, why can't you?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
ØÙرÙÙSÙÙS
I have no reason to accept or even humour the concept of the existence of a God. Show me some evidence and I'll consider changing my mind (though the chances of finding evidence good enough to persuade my puny human brain that "God" is a simpler explanation than "deceitful, powerful, clever but entirely non-supernatural alien entity" are probably quite slim).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Since topology and differential geometry work entirely well within an N-D 'surface' without recourse to embedding in and {N+1}-D space, I don't see why we have to believe in a notional 4-D space in which the 3-D spatial universe were embedded, and it multiplies actors....
are you hinting at the Platonic notion of forms and how according to him a 'real' thing is better than the idea of the thing therefore 'god' exists?
i am surely butchering the whole thing but I think you might know what I mean...
personally, when we covered that in Intro to Philosophy back in college, I never understood why something being 'real' is in any way better than not...it's utterly dependent upon context...a real tiger in your shower is probably almost always worse than just the idea of it
to me its a distinction w/o a difference...
IMHO we can't 'prove' we are real (and not just a simulation) any more than we can 'prove' god does or does not exist...
as I said above the intellectual exercise is nice...I could also add that I agree mostly w/ the other respondent below...
Thank you Dave Raggett
You can't conceive of it? So what? :)
Why do we humans think that we're at a point now such that we can conceive of anything that could exist, and therefore that anything of which we cannot conceive could not exist?
We keep pushing the boundaries of our "box," but we are still and always will be limited to thinking inside a "box."
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
probably not science. If they come up with a repeatable experiment or cosmic observation that indicates the existence of a fourth spatial dimension then the interesting theory becomes real, otherwise its just more fiction cloaked in complex math. What could be more plausible would be to consider space to be defined by 6 dimensions, three for gravity and three for the electrostatic field. Now crush the gravitational field so much that it essentially becomes one dimension and they may have something.
Greed is the root of all evil.
I like that you mentioned Conway's Game of Life. I really like it as an anology.
So forgetting 'god' questions & w/e for a minute...
I was trying to think of a way to go 'one abstractin layer down' as a sort of heuristic for programing a machine to make random choices, in an autonomous independent agent kind of scenario.
So assuming humans make choices in 3 dimensions (no reason whatsoever to think this way but hear me out...)...to go 'one abstraction layer down' is 2 dimensions
To me that sounds alot like Conway's Game of Life.
The idea is, say we're making a Sim's type game. Human avatars (to continue your analogy) and I want to **program** my avatar to make truly random choices (from my programmer's perspective) but have them function within a system that also is programmed to maintain the avatar character (keep them fed, make them wipe their ass, etc)...so this Sim's automaton can sustain their existence but no other user would ever be able to predict their behavior beyond the basics for any character.
I'm trying to program that let's say...
Using my 3d>2d heuristic, I would have to have a 'sub-martingale game' running underneath my Sim's character's existince.
This 2d game IMHO would look alot like Conway's simulation...precisely b/c of what you said above, it is binary ("is about cells being empty or full, nothing more, nothing less...")
In this 2d game, for each decision is either 'do or not'...each cell can be filled or empty...binary. In the 3d game, when the Avatar geospacially reaches some sort of decision node (player finds a bike...ride bike or do not ride bike)
In the 2d sub-game that would look something like two gliders interacting in a conway game. When they interact, they can, theoretically reconfigure to form a gosper gun, or a bigger glider, or obliterate each other...these interactions could (theoretically) be used to guide the 'choices' of avatar
ex: the autonomous avatar is represented in 2d by a two antithetical gliders that also function as a gosper gun that shoots crawlers. so here is this sort of mobile Conway yin/yang glider that moves in the 2d space in some relation to the 3d avatar
when the 3d avatar encounters some decision node in the game, that is represented in 2d by some kind of interaction with the 2d yin/yang glider and something else that can make the 2d yin/yang glider shoot out new gliders in a new direction...or make a fountain...something...
is any of this making sense? what do you think man?
Thank you Dave Raggett