Two questions:
- Why would we think otherwise considering that everything in the universe seems to rotate from galactic clusters to galaxies to black holes to stars to planets to the brains of physicists trying to reconcile relativity and quantum?
- Does the math actually work out? If so, is there a known constant for the angular momentum of the universe that would explain what we’re seeing?
SmokeyDope@piefed.social 13 hours ago
tomiant@piefed.social 12 hours ago
I’m telling you. I’ve always been telling you. We are living in a black hole. It explains elegantly a lot. It also raises absurd questions and possibilities, and nibbles at the nature of causality itself, but so help me god, we are living in a black hole.
SmokeyDope@piefed.social 10 hours ago
You are close! though its not quite that simple. According to penrose spacetime diagrams the roles of space and time get reversed in a black hole which causes all sorts of wierdness from an interior perspective. Just like the universe has no center, it also has no singularity pulling everything in unlike a black hole.
RSgZdrlNP5661Ma.png
71i1aSqo4oJkvaY.png
Now heres where it gets interesting. Our observable universe has a hard limit boundary known as the cosmological horizon due to finite speed of light and finite universe lifespan. Its impossible to ever know whats beyond this horizon boundary. similarly,black hole event horizons share this property of not being able to know about the future state of objects that fall inside. A cosmologist would say they are different phenomenon but from an information-theoretic perspective these are fundamentally indistinguishable Riemann manifolds that share a very unique property.
LZht0PvNgQCH0wg.jpg
They are geometric physically realized instances of godelian incompleteness and turing undecidability within the universes computational phase space. The universe is a finite computational system with finite state system representation capacity of about 10^122 microstates according to beckenstein bounds and planck constant. If an area of spacetime exceeds this amount of potential microstates to represent it gets quarentined in an inverse pocket universe so the whole system doesnt freeze up trying to compute the uncomputable.
The problem is that the universe can’t just throw away all that energy and information due to conservation laws, instead it utilizes something called ‘holographic principle’ to safely conserve information even if it cant compute with it. Information isn’t lost when a thing enters a black hole instead it gets encoded into the topological event horizon boundary itself. in a sense the information is ‘pulled’ into a higher fractal dimension for efficent encoding. Over time the universe slowly works on safely bleeding out all that energy through hawking radiation.
So say you buy into this logic, assume that the cosmological horizon isn’t just some observational limit artifact but an actual topological Riemann manifold made of the same ‘stuff’ sharing properties with an event horizon, like an inverted black hole where the universe is a kind of anti-singularity which distributes matter everywhere dense as it expands instead of concentrating matter into a single point. what could that mean?
So this holographic principle thing is all about how information in high dimensional topological spaces can be projected down into lower dimensional space. This concept is insanely powerful and is at the forefront of advanced computer modeling of high dimensional spaces. For example, neural networks organize information in high dimensional spaces called activation atlases that have billions and trillions of ‘feature dimensions’ each representing a kind of relation between two unique states of information.
orUFuJRVuuQl0zZ.webp
So, what if our physical universe is a lower dimensional holographic projection of the cosmological horizons manifold? What if the undecidable bubble around our universe is the universe in its native high dimensional space and our 3D+1T universe is a projection?
tomiant@piefed.social 9 hours ago
Similarly. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I mean, we can see a resolution of within 300000 years of the creation of the Universe, or something like that. That too, becomes a sort of event horizon. I’m not saying this is the case, but it kind of rhymes if we were within some sort of bubble on “the other side” of a supernova resulting in a black hole. I mean, even by our own physics, matter is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. So, it could be that, in my mind, the Big Bang was an “inverted supernova/black hole” event. I think someone called it a “white hole”. But again, I’m just completely speculating, but it’s super interesting to me as someone who just has a passion for learning and understanding and trying to figure out things myself based on the tremendous works of all the giants upon whose shoulder I stand and squint at the horizon!
tomiant@piefed.social 10 hours ago
You are absolutely right, and it is obviously not that simple, I have some tentative leads which, based on recent discoveries such as just this apparent “axel” of the Universe, could actually mean something significant. I am aware the hypothesis has been proposed previously, I believe in the 80’s, and it was not taken seriously, and as I read the news about this new discovery, to me it struck me as a smoking gun moment- if there is an axel or spin to the Universe itself, that would be a tale sign of a black hole seen from a certain perspective (outside of the Universe, which poses a problem, but not really, because we know about dimensions, so it could in my mind hypothetically itself be explained even if I am not sure what that would look like if you catch my drift).
To me, as a layman, and just fanatic lover of space (and time), I just pareidolia my way into hypotheses, and more often than not there’s some reason to it. So that’s my ground. I wrote quite a bit about it and did some research into various theories surrounding it, and there has been a lot of renewed interest in this Black Hole hypothesis ever since this discovery was made because apparently I was not alone in drawing possible conclusions.
Thank you so much for your detailed answer, I will go through it now and read what you wrote and what you posted, to get a better understanding, because obviously I am nowhere near qualified to make such bold statements as I have done. But did anyway.
<3
applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
No it’s not. You can tell you’re rotating using internal sensors alone, unlike linear velocity. Just because the magnitude of the earth’s rotation is small compared to our biological sense of rotation doesn’t mean rotation is relative the same way linear motion is. You’re drawing a false connection between the fact that you can’t tell if you’re accelerating under gravity or not to rotation, which is fundamentally different. Also you don’t rotate with units of linear velocity, but with units of angular velocity. The earth rotates at about 0.0042 deg/s, which is very slow. You rotate many orders of magnitude faster than that rolling over in bed or turning your head.
The universe having a nonzero total angular momentum does indeed imply an axis of rotation, but our theories don’t explicitly rule that out. Given the size of the universe, the rate of rotation would be inconceivably small compared to the earth, and extremely difficult to measure. Most of my problem with your statements on this point is you’re assuming current hypotheses to be confirmed fact set in stone, which is not true.
Fluke@feddit.uk 7 hours ago
2 does not preclude the observable universe being but a fraction of the entire universe, in which there is a centre about which everything else rotates, or at least, a hitherto unimagined mass on a truly universal scale that chunks of universe the size of our “observable” orbit.