Is Our Universe Trapped Inside a Black Hole? (space.com) 30
"Is everything we see around us is sealed within a black hole?" asks Space.com.
Because here's the thing. The $10 billion James Webb Space telescope (in operation since 2022) "has found that the vast majority of deep space and, thus the early galaxies it has so far observed, are rotating in the same direction. While around two-thirds of galaxies spin clockwise, the other third rotates counter-clockwise." In a random universe, scientists would expect to find 50% of galaxies rotating one way, while the other 50% rotate the other way. This new research suggests there is a preferred direction for galactic rotation... "It is still not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations," team leader Lior Shamir, associate professor of computer science at the Carl R. Ice College of Engineering, said in a statement. "One explanation is that the universe was born rotating.
"That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole.
"But if the universe was indeed born rotating, it means that the existing theories about the cosmos are incomplete." Black hole cosmology, also known as "Schwarzschild cosmology," suggests that our observable universe might be the interior of a black hole itself within a larger parent universe. The idea was first introduced by theoretical physicist Raj Kumar Pathria and by mathematician I. J. Good. It presents the idea that the "Schwarzchild radius," better known as the "event horizon," (the boundary from within which nothing can escape a black hole, not even light) is also the horizon of the visible universe.
The article cites a theory by Polish theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski of the University of New Haven that ultimately black holes don't compress indefinitely into a singularity. "The matter instead reaches a state of finite, extremely large density, stops collapsing, undergoes a bounce like a compressed spring, and starts rapidly expanding," Poplawski explained to Space.com... The scientist continued by adding that rapid recoil after such a big bounce could be what has led to our expanding universe, an event we now refer to as the Big Bang... "I think that the simplest explanation of the rotating universe is the universe was born in a rotating black hole."
Team leader Shamir offers another theory: that we just need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe. (Which could also explain the difference in the expansion rates in the universe "and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.")
Because here's the thing. The $10 billion James Webb Space telescope (in operation since 2022) "has found that the vast majority of deep space and, thus the early galaxies it has so far observed, are rotating in the same direction. While around two-thirds of galaxies spin clockwise, the other third rotates counter-clockwise." In a random universe, scientists would expect to find 50% of galaxies rotating one way, while the other 50% rotate the other way. This new research suggests there is a preferred direction for galactic rotation... "It is still not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations," team leader Lior Shamir, associate professor of computer science at the Carl R. Ice College of Engineering, said in a statement. "One explanation is that the universe was born rotating.
"That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole.
"But if the universe was indeed born rotating, it means that the existing theories about the cosmos are incomplete." Black hole cosmology, also known as "Schwarzschild cosmology," suggests that our observable universe might be the interior of a black hole itself within a larger parent universe. The idea was first introduced by theoretical physicist Raj Kumar Pathria and by mathematician I. J. Good. It presents the idea that the "Schwarzchild radius," better known as the "event horizon," (the boundary from within which nothing can escape a black hole, not even light) is also the horizon of the visible universe.
The article cites a theory by Polish theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski of the University of New Haven that ultimately black holes don't compress indefinitely into a singularity. "The matter instead reaches a state of finite, extremely large density, stops collapsing, undergoes a bounce like a compressed spring, and starts rapidly expanding," Poplawski explained to Space.com... The scientist continued by adding that rapid recoil after such a big bounce could be what has led to our expanding universe, an event we now refer to as the Big Bang... "I think that the simplest explanation of the rotating universe is the universe was born in a rotating black hole."
Team leader Shamir offers another theory: that we just need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe. (Which could also explain the difference in the expansion rates in the universe "and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself.")
Headlines that are questions... (Score:2)
...can usually be answered with a "No".
Thus, No.
Re: (Score:2)
Betteridge needs citations!
However I'm also inclined towards no because it would seem to be too simplistic a solution... Also the recursion of black holes inside black holes bothers me. Not turtles all the way down, but black holes?
Re: (Score:2)
Often the simplest explanations are the most likely. Though I think if we are trapped in a black hole as the headline says (but the summary doesn't) then shouldn't the CMB be pretty bright instead of being so dim?
Think about it -- if you're inside of the event horizon, then from the perspective of the outside you'll be standing still for aeons. Which means that you should be getting bombarded with all light that gets trapped inside with you across that entire time span, and more than that, doppler should be
Re: (Score:2)
Often the simplest explanations are the most likely.
The simplest explanation here is not to jump on a fringe theory from some guy at a minor institution.
The simplest explanation is right at the end of the summary - "we just need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The US is trapped in a supermassive asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, that comment made my entire day!
Re: (Score:2)
to exist/survive inside a black hole would be impossible, i doubt they are hollow, and they are very dense and very hot
Nope. (Score:2)
Inside a black hole's event horizon, causality can only happen towards the singularity. Information can no longer transfer away from that point, so there can be no coherent structures. Binding forces can't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Or would time effectively come to a standstill (going ever slower until the singularity divides time by zero) relative to anything beyond the event horizon until the singularity evaporates in Hawking radiation, where everything (including all light) that was falling into it comes flying out like a big bang?
In the beginning ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're inside a black hole, all theories about the universe or the big bang go out of the window. Even the definition of what a black hole is. So this article is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see that as following.
It would probably require a drastic reconfiguration of the theories about what the inside of a black hole is like, but we don't have any observations that would be contradicted.
OTOH, I don't see the basis for limiting the size of the universe to "the observable universe".
Re: (Score:2)
Not this silly simulation idea again. That idea was watered when nut-jobs fed fertilizer to Hawking black hole research. Then the string theorists did whatever it is they do and found there was a mathematical duality between a conformal field theory at a mythical boundary and the bulk (the universe). It requires 10-11 dimensions for a full expression and only works if we are in an anti-DeSitter space. We live in at best a DeSitter space or one that is totally flat where there is no boundary. It's a mathemat
I'm Not Sure About the Universe... (Score:1)
Re:I'm Not Sure About the Universe... (Score:4, Funny)
I was thinking "an orange hole...."
Not a great track record... (Score:5, Informative)
From https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmo... [reddit.com]:
The same solo author (a computer scientist) has made many similar claims based on a variety of datasets. Often coming to completely contradictory conclusions. Some of these claims have been followed up by astronomers, who found errors in his analysis and poor statistical tests. His claims have been discussed in this sub before. Independent studies have found no significant evidence of anisotropy.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras... [oup.com]
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/... [harvard.edu]
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/... [harvard.edu]
Take his claims about JWST as an example. In 2024 he wrote a paper about some early data, claiming to find more galaxies rotating with the Milky Way. He claimed based on a sample of just 34 galaxies that the signal was significant. Now he has looked at a wider dataset of the same area, which should allow him to verify his analysis. But it shows exactly the opposite, more anti. So he writes a paper saying this new result is definitely significant but doesn't reflect on the fact he has written two papers which contradict each other. He has failed to reproduce his own result. The take away is that his results are not as significant as he claims. He's also looking at a tiny area, and nearby galaxies can have correlated spins. He doesn't take this into account either. There are multiple JWST fields in different directions he could examine in different directions to test his claims, there are two JADES fields, but he only publishes one.
I do wish the MNRAS editors would take measures to stop publishing low quality claims like this without more robust review. If you look at the text, itâ(TM)s largely repeating results from his old papers. Thereâ(TM)s very little discussion of the new results.
Re: Pfft. (Score:2)
Choose two arbitrary inertial frames of reference. A body that is rotating in one, will be also rotating in the other.
The answer of your question is: "an arbitrary inertial frame of reference".
There is no direction of spin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember in a Star Wars movie they were looking some star map of a galaxy or something, and one of them said something like 'let's keep going north'.
You don't even know what you're talking about!
According to the authority on space that is Star Wars there's clearly an up to every galaxy. (And down, and left and right.) Everyone and their wookie knows that. /s
(Interesting point, on a serious note.)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a galactic magnetic field, and part of it is more or less like you'd expect - a nice north-south aligned core of a giant torus of magnetic lines.
The issue is that this is perpendicular to the galactic plane, so while you can define 'north' and 'south', you have no logical way to define east or west AND you'd need a third axis because you're talking about a volume and not the surface of an oblate spheroid.
You need to choose a dividing line for the plane of the galaxy, and place another one perpendicu
Answer to the Fermi Paradox? (Score:2)
Could being inside a black hole explain the Fermi paradox? We're asking ourselves "where are they?" but perhaps the answer is simply that no one wants to fly into a black hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong scale. If the entire universe were inside a black hole (if that were actually possible and not just an interesting pop-sci interpretation of some mathematics), we'd have plenty of room for company.
So 2 things (Score:2)
1) What happens if our "black hole universe" merged with another black hole.
2) What happens when matter falls into the "black hole universe"from the outside.
I think it would be bad for us in either case
Cosmic Coriolis Effect? (Score:2)
Of course that wouldn't explain the one-third going against the grain.