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.
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.
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 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.
Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
Arguably... to enter the universe inside a blackhole; you have only to enter the event horizon, and merge with it.
Once you merge with the event horizon; you can never leave the black hole or ever be visible to an outside observer again. Also; you will get squashed into 2 dimensions, and your particles will be scrambled ---- so although the matter that comprises you merges with the universe inside the blackhole: your physical body does not survive.
Physicists cannot say what happens to your immortal soul --- whether it escapes the pull; or whether it too becomes entrapped in the event horizon of that featureless pocket universe for the rest of eternity.
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)
Too homogeneous and perfectly distributed across all galaxies. Whatever it is it is pervasive and mixed in with observable matter.
Better known as 318230.
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
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.
Physicists cannot say what happens to your immortal soul
Physicists also cannot say what happen to your invisible unicorn.
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
If we can accept that the universe exists without demanding to know how it started
Then you're not being very scientific about it.
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.
What's the alternative? If we can't explain it, don't even try? No. You gather it up, you put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it, and then you let the rest of the community do their best to come up with something which explains the world better. And that's science.
**SOMETHING** started the universe...who cares if it was God or something else...
I care. I want to know.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
... hurts my brane.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
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.)
The field of ideas is separate from what we call reality, so in any case, I was not considering Plato. It's quicker to turn the problem upside down.
In the context of a videogame, I am my avatar. I might be picking my nose while the avatar nukes a city, my behavior has no whatsoever effect except for my inputs to the game. So, are we going to call real my nose picking, which cannot be detected at all and has no whatsoever bearing to the action, or are we going to call real whatever happens in the game? We are going to choose the second. Our reality is still important, it is the only thing that permits the videogame to exist as an abstraction. just like the kingdom of a god has bearing in our reality, if any exists.
Or let's consider a simulation, a game of chess. the universe in the game of checkers is the board, from the point of view of the pawn, that is called reality. Interactions have definitive consequences just like real stuff does for us. In fact nothing else is real for the pawn, we sure are not real, because in the abstraction called a game of chess, the nature of the player is irrelevant, there are only moves.
Reality for a Conway's game of life creature is about cells being empty or full, nothing more, nothing less is real.
Reality for us is all the things we can directly or indirectly or potentially experience. What makes reality behave like this? an ARBITRARY set of rules and who knows what more. A god behind those rules? we cannot tell.
Reality is the name given to an abstraction by agents belonging to that same level of abstraction. Simulation is what has one more level of abstraction. The creator hypothetically resides in one less level of abstraction.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol