Do We Live Inside A Black Hole… And Could We?

Could our entire Universe be one enormous Black Hole? And is it possible to live inside a black hole?
Go to nordvpn.com/is... to get a 2-year plan plus 4 additional months with a HUGE discount. It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @isaacarthursfia
Visit our Website: www.isaacarthur...
Join Nebula: go.nebula.tv/i...
Support us on Patreon: / isaacarthur
Support us on Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Facebook Group: / 1583992725237264
Reddit: / isaacarthur
Twitter: / isaac_a_arthur on Twitter and RT our future content.
SFIA Discord Server: / discord
Credits:
Do We Live Inside A Black Hole… And Could We?
Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur
Episode 374, December 22, 2022
Produced & Narrated by Isaac Arthur
Produced, Written
& Narrated by:
Isaac Arthur
Editors:
Briana Brownell
Lukas Konecny
Cover Art by:
Jakub Grygier
Graphics by:
Jeremy Jozwik
Ken York
Music Courtesy of Epidemic Sound epidemicsound.c...

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

"Homer, your theory of a donut shaped universe intrigues me. I'll have to steal it for my own."

[@andrewwhite1576]

Small world

[@TGBurgerGaming]

"Simpsons did it!"

[@thecondescendinggoomba5552]

Even the interdimensional cosmic beings simulating our universe are ripping off the simpsons, smh originality is dead

[@jamesamos6565]

An ironic hell only works if you can understand it.

[@kingdomofbird8174]

Haha Z A W A R U D O

[@timothy8428]

The idea of Isaac exasperating his professors with countless unanswerable questions seems so in character.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

I'm not sure anyone other than him ever got exasperated, I learned to dial it back a bit after that first experience, but I was a very enthusiastic 16 year old coming out of home schooling for the last 6 years before and didn't really have a great filter for when to ask questions or not.

[@telumatramenti7250]

@@isaacarthurSFIA I did that too. But my questions were more often something like: "how many kilonewtons of force would it take to ignite the Sulphur on the ends of regular (non strike-anywhere) matches, if one hits it with a hard surface, and is it even doable?" Which is why now I don't have a KZbin science or scifi channel. Or a physics degree for that matter 😝

[@atashgallagher5139]

@Isaac Arthur I did the exact same thing after being homeschooled since the end of kindergarten. I knew a lot and wanted to learn a lot more.

[@stephencooley5523]

This channel is one of the best things on youtube, I often download these channel videos so I can listen to them offline when I'm cleaning my apartment or doing the cooking. The videos from this channel often blow my mind with it's concepts about the future humanity and the universe. Have a very lovely Christmas Issac.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

you too Stephen

[@budweiser600]

I don't get the benefit of living around a black hole - sure, time slows down, but relatively we still live the same length of time! The only difference would be we see time accelerating massively in the rest of the Universe.

[@nasfoda_gamerbrbigproducti5375]

Civilizations would be capacle of surviving longer.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

If the universe is dying (or local space becoming uninhabitable at some future time), then slowing down time is a big win. You extend the deadline for your civilization. You also become rather hard to aim weapons at from outside.

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@SkorjOlafsen No, you slow down _your_ time, so you have less subjective time to spend in the dying universe.

[@lukemurray-smith5454]

Personal thoughts on this. From within a black hole looking out, we'd probably still see space moving away from us even before the cosmic horizon, as its expanding its distance from us due to our being closer to the singularity and moving at a faster speed away from the cosmic horizon, which might give an illusion of expansion. This could make it seem like its behaving differently to how a black hole behaves for an inside observer while all the mathematics are actually the same. I feel that this fits better when thinking universe is falling internally from every point into a space that is not the one it currently occupies allowing for motion through time. Just some personal and amateur ideas on this. Great video and thanks for sharing.

[@MysteryKar]

an alien species living inside a sub-universe located inside a black hole in our universe and them realizing that their universe is shrinking via hawking radiation and desperately trying to stop or reverse it sounds like quite the book

[@shanechambers1146]

I've thought that we could live on the edge of the accretion disc of a black hole. That would explain things like paranormal things. We would never know as time would flow extremely slow (normal to us) and fast from a distance out. Just a thought

[@michaelgroulx4249]

I wish I could find an audio version I accidentally wrote this on a reply but I love this and everything about it especially the fact that the perceived questions of the 15th dimensional chess that he's playing are instantly answered it is a highly intelligent gift that is not dictated through the lack of proper speech and I appreciate how your brain is wired I had a very profound speech impediment growing up and it just reinforces my beliefs that just because you might sound a little different or your perception is a little skewed from others does not mean that there's a lack of intelligence it could be the exact opposite very easily and I believe in most cases it is thank you Isaac I love listening to you at night every night I really appreciate you in my life

[@xXx_Regulus_xXx]

23:38 "beat thermodynamics and entropy" has this already been covered in another episode? if not I'm requesting it

[@darkguardian1314]

Humanity should be glad we are not on a star cast out into intergalactic space between galaxies . .alone.

[@theFLCLguy]

I don't think things started as a singularity. Instead I think it's in the false vacuum collapses at the end of one universe and creates a new energy scale for the next universe. And when the false vacuum collapses and the new lower energy scale is established everything is nearly absolutely hot. Which causes rapid expansion. And the reason it seems like the was a period of expansion faster than light is the previous universe. And the super massive black holes are the remain from the previous universe. And I think the vacuum collapses when the vacuum energy density is high enough that virtual photons and such start forming on their own. Which causes the entire universe to become absolute hot before matter is formed bringing down the vacuum density.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

A singularity in a model just tells us that there's a point where the model stops working, not that we'll encounter actual infinities. Just as cosmology has moved beyond the idea of the universe expanding from an infinitely dense point, it's a bit of nonsense to say that a collapsing star would fall into an infinitely dense point. All we know is: to look that closely we'll need a new model.

[@theFLCLguy]

@@SkorjOlafsen yes, anything that involves infinity or nothingness is just a place holder for something we don't understand.

[@piratehunter1]

Given that when a black hole finally explodes at the end of it's life then could that be when in another part of space/time a white hole/big bang is about to happen?

[@ponyote]

One of the most profound things I know now is that if the Sun vanished, we literally could not know for 8 minutes.

[@phookadude]

If you think of the "Rubber Sheet" model of gravity (simplistic as it is) a weight placed upon a suspended rubber sheet produces a dimple that (disregarding friction) simulates the warping of spacetime, bigger weight=bigger dimple and smaller weights will "orbit" it. A black hole is where the curve of the sheet becomes a parabola and the sides of the curve become a tube extending "down" away from the nominally 2 dimensional surface of the sheet. That's how you get an infinite space (sort of, the lifespan of the universe is limited and even with space expanding faster than light speed the tube never has time to grow to infinity) inside of a finite one and the new universe is on the sides of the tube and the mouth of the tube where it goes parallel is the event horizon. The tube initially expanded at a speed much greater than the speed of light and the early universe wasn't transparent which is why you can't see out. If new light or materiel fell in it would appear so scattered as to be undetectable from the inside.

[@JohnDlugosz]

I don't think that's right.

[@phookadude]

@@JohnDlugosz What do you think is wrong with it, aside from trying to simplify things so that most can understand it?

[@Robustacap]

I haven't watched this yet, but as soon as I saw the Penrosian topic I went singularly YESSS!! Finally! Scale this current cosmos far enough and you have a singularity!

[@Robustacap]

Scratch that "Penrosian".. there was talk of Black Holes but not much of the insides (which yeah, is a mystery).

[@zephyr8072]

You can't put a bag of holding inside another, but you can materialise a TARDIS inside another TARDIS. Time Lord science is just better.

[@davidfinley1214]

Happy Anniversary JWST

[@tabletopgamingwithwolfphototec]

🎶 Black hole sun please come and was away the rain. 🎶

[@davidhunter1538]

I read that two entangled particles will instantly react to state changes no matter how far the distance, breaking light speed restrictions even. This seems to indicate that there must be some other realm underlying the universe we inhabit where physics is different. If one entangled particle was placed inside the event horizon of a black hole and the particle we have still changes state regardless of that - wouldn't that observation constitute proof? Your thoughts?

[@Vaeldarg]

They're not reacting to anything. From their creation, there are the 2 particles and one is the "up" and the other is the "down". You get one, the other is elsewhere. You simply don't know which is which until you check which one you have. That's why Schrodinger's Cat was a thought experiment to show that the idea was absurd and not reality: each of those 2 particles COULD be the "up" or the "down" particle, but that doesn't mean one is ever both at the same time.

[@davidhunter1538]

@@Vaeldarg Thank you

[@JohnDlugosz]

The two particles don't "react". Assuming they are spacelike separated, there are reference frames where A is examined before B, there are reference frames where B is examined before A, and a reference frame where A and B are examined simultaneously. As for "some other realm" that is an interesting line to pursue. The particles' non-seperable wave functions exist in a Hilbert Space. You can look at how particles relate to each other in different ways. But it's spacetime position matching where interactions can occur, so space and time appear to us to be the way the Universe works.

[@Vaeldarg]

@@JohnDlugosz It isn't anything that complex. It's just that the Copenhagen Interpretation should be thrown out since all it has done is cause magical thinking. It's simply that each particle is one OR the other, never both regardless of being observed or not.

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@Vaeldarg I agree with the first part of what you said, but not the second. Now, it is common to create what is called a "cat state" after Schrodinger's Cat, for ever larger and more complex systems. An experiment where a Bose-Einstein Condensate (many atoms) are in two places at once, with a record of 50 centimeters separation, seems only limited by the size of the apparatus. One idea for building quantum computers is with a row of particles reacting to each other like little springs, and the spin of some of them enter a superposition, so the physical state of the "spring" is a superposition of different positions and momentums. In the case of "ever both [up and down] at the same time, I refer you to the Bell Inequalities. It is not a property of nature that the particle was _always_ Up before you measured it.

[@kalvinowens530]

My imagination takes off when I hear Author speak

According the the calculation that I have seen, if you make a black hole out of all of the "stuff" in the observable universe, then the event horizon it makes would be 3x of the observable universe (assuming that dark matter is real).

[@sahkoautokoulu]

So if time and space change places inside the event horizon, would we notice that when inside?

[@JungleJargon]

Dark matter and dark energy aren’t needed when you understand that rate of time and the measure of distance are relative to the amount of matter in the vicinity. The speed of light literally depends on these variables of time and distance. As you observe a galaxy you are seeing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance. The result is that you are actually seeing differing speeds of light relative to where we are since the measures of time and distance are dependent on the amount of matter and gravity there is in the vicinity. (The speed of light isn’t actually changing, the measures of time and distance are changing *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.)* The result is that distance is greatly expanded (not expanding) where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies (causing redshift) eliminating the need for dark energy and the movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies is at a faster rate of time causing them to move faster as we observe them eliminating the need for dark matter. This also means that plasma jets shooting out from the center of galaxies isn’t seven times the speed of light. It’s that the distance is expanded and the rate of time is faster the less matter there is in the vicinity. There is no such thing as a nonsensical infinitely expanding universe and there is no such thing as imaginary invisible dark matter.

[@Dragrath1]

I'm not sure about the speed of light claim because in GR the speed of light is only a conversion factor between the temporal and spatial axes. What is likely more relevant in terms of contextualizing the behavior of spacetime is that the rate of expansion depends on the relative distribution of the energy stress tensor. In fact in the limit where the size of a nontrivial universe that is initially expanding (nontrivial meaning it isn't perfectly homogeneous and isotropic) approaches infinity, the "no big crunch theorem" shows that the cumulative total of these changes in the rate of expansion must be such that any universe will expand forever maximizing the volume of the manifold along any possible time-slice of spacetime. One implication of this is that the assumption for a constant rate of expansion is logically inconsistent and or causally forbidden for all possible choices of initial conditions. Thus rather than thinking in terms of a changing speed of light its likely far more natural to think in terms of a changing rate of expansion. This also allows one to drop the presumed dark energy terms because the natural large scale propagation of even small inhomogeneities and anisotropies to cosmological scales automatically reproduces such effects purely through gravity. This is because if you factor in the context of information theory and project the propagation of past light cones you can realize that the No big crunch theorem is really just the generalization of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (You also get the arrow of time the other laws of thermodynamics and GR becomes consistent with Bell's inequality) Thus while symmetric metrics can be constructed within the framework of the Einstein field equations there exists no valid solutions which can ever mathematically evolve into such a state. As for dark matter it has come to my attention that the nonlocal behavior which doesn't transmit information can be most naturally explained with a lowest level eigenstate for each and every possible qubit pair in the Energy stress tensor. This results in nonzero nonlocal terms which grow in magnitude with the size of a given universe and it just so happens that the balance between these nonlocal diagonal contributions to gravity and the local gravity allows you to at least in the approximate limiting case reproduce Modified Newtonian Dynamics in the context of inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology. More amusingly though is that in such a case the metric tensor and thus gravity is really just the superposition of all possible entanglements with in all possibility distance being an emergent property that arises due to causality and entanglement. (a.k.a. its a combination of the ER=EPR conjecture and the gravity driven wavefunction collapse albeit with the order reversed)

[@jwilliamsmith9316]

I always bring my unknown Clarke tech with me

[@brownwhale5518]

I love the Doctor Who two part episode ‘The Impossible Planet’, but I’m not to sure about its scientific accuracy. Thank you SFIA. Shoot. I didn’t know my edit would remove the SFIA ‘love’.

[@alexhaywood3139]

The subject overlap between you and PBS Spacetime is getting strangely close to have not had some form of Collab (he has given you a shout-out though).

[@jackesioto]

wouldn't we get spaghetified [violently torn apart atom by atom] if we were inside a black hole? it seems acording to standard theory, the black hole's singularity would rip us into subatomic pieces!

[@jackesioto]

on second thought, the cosmological horizon [the edge of the observable universe] could be seen as being akin to the event horizon of a black hole

[@stcredzero]

Wouldn't a superluminal speed expansion of space, like we theorize in "Inflation" be able to neutralize an Event Horizon? If most of the mass inside an event horizon were transported to outside of it, the event horizon would cease to be! Maybe the universe began from inside a black hole?

[@jimhofoss9982]

humans can’t conceive an infinite universe, because our brains are finite…

[@sookendestroy1]

So if the universe acts opposite to a black hole then is it possible were in an expanding white hole?

[@NaniFatimana]

2:53

[@tripledeluxeguy]

If our universe were a black hole in another universe, and physics are not fundamentally different (our universe's physics can interact with the greater universe's physics), then wouldn't FTL be possible, and in multiple ways? First we have quantum duplication, wherein our position is translated by gravity and virtual particles, this would only be possible if our universe has similar or higher energy density to the greater universe, and would only be FTL towards the center of the black hole. Second way I can come up with is (far more handwavy) vacuum manipulation - where we could forcibly change the energy state and density of matter in front of us to pull us to the front of that bubble, kind of like sliding between particles, or an Alcubierre drive that doesn't need greater mass than the rest of the universe. Both of these are incredibly handwavy but off the top of my head are at least founded in 10 year old cosmological """"science""""

[@djschultz1970]

Thank You SFIA. Does The universe being a white hole make any sense? I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone try and think that one through.

[@lukemurray-smith5454]

I used to think it was, though the cosmic horizon only shares behaviours from a black hole, internal or external as external your still confined to seeing your own cosmic horizon it would only appear as a white hole from some other outside perspective. Though I was and sometimes am still hopefully someone with better skills can break this concept in either way as I'd love for us to find one.

[@petevenuti7355]

I'll stick to raviolivacation thank you!

[@ThorF]

YES. WE. CAN.

[@mancramps]

Does Isaac ever talk about the Three Body Problem novels?

[@SkorjOlafsen]

There's an episode on the Dark Forest idea, IIRC, and he describes why it doesn't make sense in several episodes along the way.

[@Inertia888]

My first Hawking's book was Ultimate Theory of Time. It was also in 1997, and I was 18years old. I understood much less of it than what I thought I did at the time, and I imagine I still understand much less of it than I think I do now.

[@muninrob]

I understand Hawking's works, but working the proofs is WAAAAY beyond me. (Kind of like how I can explain how your car engine works, while being completely lost under the hood)

[@telumatramenti7250]

@@muninrob You know, at one point 3 books of mathematical proofs were published to justify the basic notion that 1+1=2 (among a few other things). I understand that 1+1=2, however poorly, but some of these proofs were way beyond me so I sort of decided to take their word for it. Which sort of sucked because I always had good marks in all my university math related courses. But hey I learned that it takes courage to throw in the towel sometimes 😂

[@qwadratix]

@@telumatramenti7250 The world is full of knowledge and skills that you simply cannot master. It literally takes a human lifetime to master any one of them. No matter how much you know about one tiny aspect of even say Physics or Mathematics or Anthropology, or Medicine or Archaeology or Music or... there will always be more to learn. I've spent 76 years (so far) learning everything I could about literally everything I come across and I've hardly scratched the surface. Just enjoy the ride.

[@telumatramenti7250]

@@qwadratix You know, there are plenty of skills that don't take a lifetime to master. My background is Cogitive/Behavioural Sciences and IT. The first leads to a lifetime of learning, but is the least likely to give you the financial rewards you need to live with minimal comforts. You're up against the odds that make winning a lottery look less daunting. The second does as well, but, for the time being, it contains plenty of narrower fields, one of which you can not only master in your lifetime - but derive a more or less an OK income from. And use your remaining spare time to learn about everything else that sparks your curiosity. Which is what I picked after some deliberation. The ride is great. It's the destination that sucks.

[@TotalyRandomUsername]

There is a wonderful series about physics on YT. Starts with the ancient greeks up to modern physics. Goes from things you understand, to things you thought you understood but did not, up to things you never will understand. :)

[@FamfritFW]

I really appreciate that every single one of your videos has subtitles, because it increases accessibility and helps those of us who either have trouble processing or perceiving auditory information.

[@UpliftedCapybara]

Me too. Even if I don’t need them, I find a lot of times in other channels a word or phrase gets muffled and you can’t figure out what they’re trying to say.

[@Zurround]

I keep falling asleep so the subtitles don't help me much.

[@puddles5501]

i also appreciate he doesn't always mention the "speech difference" (ie, accent?) as much anymore either, I've been following for half a decade and i can't recall missing a single word. (if you read this Issac , you speak English far more clearly than most ppl in my country... keep reminding people to grab a snack and a water to drink though, its very wholesome, and relevant given how hefty you missives are)

[@magichobo]

Gotta be deaf to enjoy this content

[@thesesillkids7911]

@@puddles5501 I'm pretty sure is some of his earlier videos, he calls it a speech impediment.

[@DonCDXX]

This is one of those things I thought of decades ago and felt all clever like I came up with something new. Then I looked in to it and discovered that other people had already thought the same and felt less special.

[@robertmiller9735]

Fred Pohl for one-have you read the Heechee books?

[@TheWareek]

Hey dont feel to bad, YOU did come up with it by yourself, no one told you so bravo to you.

[@muninrob]

You're not alone, when I asked my professor he handed me a box of photocopied journal pages and told me "If it's not one of these, it might earn you a Nobel". He had a box for students that "found dark matter", and another for those of us who "figured out dark energy" - I guess a lot of bright 1st year students re-invent the same wheels year after year. I've also gotten the equally crushing "That's covered in the third year block" on a couple of my "brilliant" "discoveries". P.S. I for one don't feel all that bad when I find out I was not only right, but also that Schwartzchild beat me to the math by several decades.

[@NurmYokai]

"The Collapsing Universe: The Story of the Black Holes" (1977) by Isaac Asimov (1920-1992). "It is quite possible, then, that the entire universe is itself a black hole (as has been suggested by the physicist Kip Thorne)." Kip Thorne (1940 - ) "theoretical physicist known for his contributions in gravitational physics and astrophysics" Nobel Prize in Physics (2017) Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics (2016) Gruber Prize in Cosmology (2016) Albert Einstein Medal (2009) Karl Schwarzschild Medal (1996) To name a few ... And then, APS (American Physical Society) News: November 27, 1783: John Michell anticipates black holes "We think of black holes as a 20th century invention, dating back to 1916, when Albert Einstein first published his theory of general relativity and fellow physicist Karl Schwarzschild used those equations to envision a spherical section of spacetime so badly warped around a concentrated mass that it is invisible to the outside world. But the true “father” of the black hole concept was a humble 18th century English rector named John Michell-a man so far ahead of his scientific contemporaries that his ideas languished in obscurity, until they were re-invented more than a century later." John Michell (1724 - 1793) "Every time I see one of those things I expect to spot some guy dressed in red with horns and a pitchfork." Lieutenant Charles Pizer, The Black Hole (1979).

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

I know that feeling, I bet a lot of folks here do too. It happens a lot, some idea we think is clever but is either easily disprovable or was indeed clever but someone got it before we were even born. I've stopped even claiming any of mine these days from all the times its turned out some obscure space-thinker published a version of it before I could even read :)

[@ApartmentPrepping]

If the universe expands at a constant rate (not exponential) and we’re falling into a black hole, the universe would age in fast forward, giving the appearance of a universe expanding faster and faster.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Interesting point actually.

[@js70371]

Great thought. Care to further elaborate?

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@js70371 As you get close to a dense object, time passes slower. So as you get close to an even horizon, you'll find one second passing for you is a year outside, then a bit later one second for you is a century outside, then you see the stars dying of old age...

[@Immashift]

I do think there are several issues with the universe is a black hole theory, not the least of which is time and space getting sort of screwy, though I'm not sure if that's going to affect your subjective frame of reference. Who knows, maybe in a few billion years as we sink deeper causality will start getting wonky on us. One day you'll come home before driving to work, find a baby in your house, then your wife tells you she's pregnant, and then you'll both meet for the first time, shortly before you're born. Reality is all probability wave expressions bouncing around quantum fields, maaaan. If we truly are in a black hole, all we have to do is wait. According to everything I've learned, then the heat death of the universe becomes a point in the distant future we will *never* reach as our time to reach the singularity takes on infinite values. It'll just be runaway expansion followed by all encompassing colder and colder black for eternity, shortly before the black hole either evaporates and reality fades away or it dumps us all into a new universe courtesy of a white hole which we currently have a hard time trying to find, if they're even a thing. Personally, I like the elegance of the toroid, universe is a donut explanation, with time and space mapped to the outside surface. That nicely explains runaway inflation, eventual plateau, then accelerating compression into a new big bang. Cyclical cosmology is just cool. It's probably all wrong, just like all our perceptions of reality, but hey at least it has donuts. Monkey brains weren't built to handle why gravity go down. Yet here we are smashing quarks together a quarter million years later.

[@sulljoh1]

What a cool concept! The idea of building a black hole without a singularity (via something like a Klemperer rosette) is prime scifi speculation fuel.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

"Singularity" in a black hole is often misunderstood. The singularity within a black hole is a point in time, not (necessarily) in space. You could e.g. form a black hole from a gas of uniform density, but there would still be a singularity. From the perspective of an outside observer, space inside a black hole contracts over time until it's zero size (much like out own universe in reverse), From the perspective of an inside observer, who knows?

[@Robustacap]

@@SkorjOlafsen Thank you for bringing me the Penrose, he has many similar ideas, why I referred to him. I thought this episode to be very different. Cosmology rather than outsides of black holes.

[@JohnDlugosz]

No, Penrose proved that there _must_ be a singularity.

[@sulljoh1]

@@JohnDlugosz Did Penrose show that you must have a singularity in every black hole?

[@SkorjOlafsen]

@@sulljoh1 Yes. However, the singularity is not a point in space, any more than the big bang occurred at some specific point in space. It's a contraction of space itself over time. That being said, any statements about what happen in the reference frame of an observer inside the event horizon are pure speculation, The math shows what happens from the reference frame of a distant observer down to an observer at the event horizon, Beyond that we don't know if the model still works, or quite how to interpret it if it does.

[@LOTUG98]

A black hole is the only known thing that can light can't escape from. Ironically the expansion of the universe moves faster than light. 👀

[@jasoncourson8112]

True... But when people typically here that they confuse a few things... One.. the speed of light ONLY applies to things that move though space-time... NOT space-time itself. Which is why all galaxies ( approximately 2 Trillion galaxies in the observable universe ) that are not bound to us by local gravity ( like Andromeda which is on a collision course with our own ) are receding away from us faster than the speed of light... Soon they will fade from view and we'll have no clue or evidence that there were this many galaxies at one time... Also there are in mathematical theory which again is different from I have a theory there exist a particle or something that we call a tachyon. Which can not go slower than the speed of light that's the slowest they can go is light speed otherwise they move faster than light.

[@jamisonreynolds9949]

That isn’t ironic.

[@kingmasterlord]

imagine spraying a water gun backwards out the window of a car, that is like light working against the expansion of the universe. now imagine spraying it forwards, that is light fighting against a black hole.

[@Dark_Jaguar]

Light also can't escape an opaque closed box. There's a lot of things light can't escape from.

[@jamisonreynolds9949]

@@Dark_Jaguar There’s a difference in light not escaping a solid box and light not escaping a gravitational pull.

[@js70371]

This episode was fantastic Isaac. Really enjoyed your take on what is a becoming such a relevant and prescient topic for contemporary physics. I’d like to take an opportunity to say thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into this channel and the amazing community of followers that you’ve built. A great example of what the internet is truly meant for. Happy Holidays to you and your family, and wishing y’all peace, love, happiness and health in the coming New Year. Can’t wait to see what SFIA has in store for 2023. Many cheers from Canada brother!! 🎄☮️❤️💫🙏🇨🇦🍻

[@lueyR]

I always wondered this.... ever since I learned of black holes

[@thingsiplay]

Some speculate the "other side" of a black hole is the opposite, a white hole. Maybe, just a maybe, a black hole takes everything and spits it out as a white hole on the other side. Which would basically spawn a new universe and could be a big bang. Just wanted to add another thing you can wonder about. :D Have a good day!

[@krissisk4163]

Since energy can neither be destroyed nor escape a black hole, wouldn't the interior of a black hole be extremely hot and blindingly bright?

[@JohnDlugosz]

Things _are_ destroyed! That is the singularity. You find the world lines simply terminate, which is not normally possible.

[@boring7823]

The energy density of a black hole could be flat (without a singularity) as long as it's high enough to get the speed of light escape velocity. In that case it's contents could be warm or very very cold depending on how big it is. The problem with black holes is the maths starts to fall apart at the event horizon. At that surface some results start to look wrong, so much so that people didn't believe they could exist until matching observations were found. Even now exactly how you can get infinite time dilation at the event horizon doesn't make sense; however, that maths can be made to work at the event horizon and inside it. It's only when you get to the centre of the simplest solution (all the mass falls into a point like singularity) that the maths completely breaks. If something keeps the matter larger than a point (ie: plank length effects) then the maths isn't completely broken. You just crash into that weird lump of solid spacetime. OTOH: If you take the time dilation at face value all matter and energy stops at the event horizon and that surface does indeed get hotter and hotter as the mass-energy approaches that infinity thin surface causing the energy density to approach infinity. With this idea the event horizon would "start" at a point in spacetime and end up "sweeping" the entire contents of the space enclosed by the event horizon into that surface so the "inside" of the black hole not longer exists.

[@goldfish2289]

The universe is a giant fishbowl

[@rossemklyn401]

With a sea of stars in

[@InnocuousRemark]

The giant fishbowl is a universe

[@j2corpse763]

420 man

[@TheGreenKnight500]

It's actually a ten gallon fish tank

[@pyne1976]

If the big bang was a white hole, the the dark energy expansion could just be the rate at which our parent black hole is feeding.

[@petevenuti7355]

But because time starts at an event horizon and stops at the beginning of time it all happened at once

[@pyne1976]

@@petevenuti7355 Infinity is weird like that😉

[@JohnDlugosz]

No, the blackhole-creates-a-new-universe theory has it that the newly created expanding spacetime becomes *detached* from the parent universe. Not only is the space not connected, but the _time_ is a new distinct thing, not lined up in any way with the parent universe's time. So for something happening the parent black hole to be making corresponding changes to our universe just doesn't work.

[@petevenuti7355]

@@JohnDlugosz yes, I believe, the event horizon is literally point 0 in time (beginning and end of time) a shell in one frame of reference and a point in another. There's no reason that there can't be more than one theory! We can't prove anything yet. The beginning of time inside of black hole can be the beginning of time in our own universe just as validly as the beginning of time in a new universe. Who are we to think we know?

[@JRichardson711]

I come to grips with the re sizing of space and time of a baby universe in a black hole by conserving conformity. Basically the scale of space and time are adjusted to much smaller increments, and viola, vast and maybe infinite distances can be confined in a finite area.

[@dannyCOTW]

Perfect timing for my holiday insomnia! Thanks Isaac

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Happy holidays!

[@ninjasquirrels]

This was a “add to playlist” kinda episode I listen to when I’m outside working…loved it. Marry Christmas and happy holidays everyone.

[@cannonfodder4376]

The idea of building a black hole without a singularity is such a nutty concept that if I heard of it anywhere else I would have scoffed and ignored who suggested it. But it's seemingly par for the course on SFIA so I don't even blink in surprise. Another wonderful and informative episode.

[@JohnDlugosz]

You should have scoffed, as Roger Penrose did in 1965. He ended up winning the Nobel Prize for that work in 2020. Short answer: There _must_ be a singularity.

[@anthonymoses3697]

Oh man, I've been waiting for this episode with bated breath. I love your channel, Isaac. Been enjoying your high quality content for years.

[@kingmasterlord]

9:35 our big bang and our observable universe could be a tiny and common occurrence in a much larger region filled with spacetime bubbles

[@garethwillis]

Issac do you think cyclic big bangs could be caused by increasing expansion?. If separating quarks produces more, what happens when the expansion is so great locally that it overcomes the quark coupling strength? That would generate a quark soup, just like the beginning.

[@edwardstone1654]

Another tour dè force by Isaac Arthur. Amazing just barely begins to describe this channel.

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

What if time in a black hole is experienced backwards? We are watching material fall into a singularity in reverse. We experience entropy increasing, but from the outside it is decreasing. While for an ourside viewer it might seem reasonable that we can see them. For us it would mean that we have to look into the future. So both sides of the event horizon are sepparated.

[@granolabob1]

Always enjoy your videos. Great content and excellent delivery!

[@asdfadfafsdfa]

If we can entangle particles and have a set with us and drop the rest in a black hole could we get data out via the spins?

[@Brellowcrop]

If we did live in a blackhole, would that be the reason we feel the flow of time?

[@demounit]

I only recently discovered your channel, this is my first new video of yours. so stoked!

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Welcome aboard!

[@demounit]

thanks man, happy to be here. happy holidays and thanks for the cosmic pondering sessions!

[@FrnnkEducation]

@demo you gotta go deep in thr archives. This guy's beyong omega level genius

[@demounit]

@@FrnnkEducation haha don't worry I have been working my way through! still so so much to go!

[@lordilluminati5836]

woah, isn't this concept about the 'multiple dense object' black hole presented in "the abyss beyond dreams"?

[@stansterkendries1250]

Do an episode about quark stars. It's an interesting concept with little good content about it.

[@themostwanted774]

Hey Isaac! Can you please enable the subtitles? They are disabled and it would really help people who have hearing problems

[@Immashift]

One thing I love about this channel is that the content is *never* clickbait. It's not like other channels *cough..Riddle...cough* that have a flashy thumbnail and clickbait title and then proceed to talk about anything but the topic in the title. I see video from Isaac, it's gonna be exactly what it says on the tin, with zero artificial or trans-hype. I'm so happy one of my days off got switched to Thursdays.

[@thaumatourgos5884]

Can a blackhole be ripped apart? If so, I wonder if our big bang might not have been a singularity that was ripped apart or erupted in a much larger universe.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

possibly by dark energy, it gets contemplated in Big Rip scenarios

[@abramsonrl]

So it doesn't sound like there's any strong reason to believe we're living in a lock hole, that civilizations could live in a black hole, that if they could, we know anything about them. But we're learning more as we go. Much of what we already know doesn't make any sense, even to most cosmologist. But it's not completely impossible for someone to kind of sort of safely live in one version of a black hole that probably doesn't exist anywhere.

[@IntraFinesse]

Around 11 minutes. Space isn't expanding everywhere, its not expanding inside gravitationally bound objects like the Local Group and its certainly not expanding inside our bodies. It expands faster in large voids.

[@cdk1016]

I was wondering why I wasn't seeing any IA videos in my feed and discovered I'd been unsubscribed! I'm glad that I was able to fix that but it's strange because I definitely didn't unsubscribe. Anybody else have this happen to them?

[@bingbangboom1239]

The assumption that the universe began with all its mass present at the time of the Big Bang, maybe wrong. What if the continued growth of the universe was the result of continuing in fall of mass into the universe. Also, what if the collapse of the previous universe created great many baby black holes that merged almost instantly following collapse and coalesced into our present universe, and continues to grow still with in-fall of more mess from greater meta universe?

[@atashgallagher5139]

I prefer the terms, the suggestions of physics, the suggestions of thermodynamics, and the speed of light is more like the suggested speed limit.

[@MartinCHorowitz]

No Latest Santa Tech Episode?

[@Nulono]

If black holes on the scale of lightyears could have issues with dark energy, would that come into play in building a Birch planet?

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Birch Planets are upperedned at aroung one galactic mass to keep them at a radius that has Earthlike gravity outside the event horizon, so around a lgiht year max size, we're really talking even bigger for dark energy messups, not tha tit wouldn't be a minor factor at least.

[@JohnDlugosz]

No, because the Dark Energy (as we understand it) won't affect a massive object. Look up Friedman Equations. The rescaling effect is inverse (to some power I don't recall) to mass. That is, it happens in the galactic voids, *not* in or around a huge mass! If D.E. is "something else" that comes into play uniformly everywhere, then it would affect our measurement of G based on distance. In any case, the effect is very small on the scale of light years.

[@MarkGast]

It's black holes all the way down man. Recursive reality?

[@lynettecarter9887]

Yet again my friend you and family 💖 well done and happy XMASS 🎅

[@ankushchakrabarty3822]

First view like comment and share 🙂

[@revenevan11]

Interesting, I was under the impression that we all live in a yellow submarine 🤔😅

[@BurnDoubt]

I guess I'm going to be watching this episode hungry and thirsty

[@mikeekim1101]

Would gravitational waves from inside the event horizon of a large black hole radiate out past the event horizon? If so could information and communication from inside be possible that way using artificial gravitational waves?

[@JohnDlugosz]

No. You can think of an EH as space falling in like a river flowing; as it's faster than light, signals can't propagate upstream.

[@admiral_hoshi3298]

My favorite theory might be the idea that dark energy and dark matter are actually just programming bugs in our simulation and we weren't supposed to notice them.

[@JM-zg2jg]

Programming bugs??? Those parameters whatever their actual cause, are fundamental to the functioning of the universe as it exists. So if we are a simulation, meant to simulate the Universe as it currently is. Then it follows that they had to be intentional. Also, us being in a simulation doesn’t mean that we are the reason for the simulation. They could just have a really advanced simulation of a galaxy, with us as irrelevant NPCs that don’t even get examined. So what we notice doesn’t even matter.

[@eric212234]

Or the programmers weren't clever enough to come up with a stable system without them ;p

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@eric212234 That's more like it. DM is _necessary_ for the structure of our universe. Imagine the programming interns assigned the job not being able to get it to work, and the manager says to just hack in the right result.

[@itheuserfirst3186]

Well of course. The universe is all because of us.

[@eric212234]

@@itheuserfirst3186 He did say his 'favorite', not the one he thought most probable.

[@Dr.Gunsmith]

I bet the aliens 👽 know everything.

[@mattparker9726]

Thanks Isaac! This is an AWESOME episode!!!

[@slayer2450]

Another fascinating video

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@DanielGenis5000]

Merry Christmas and thank you for this wonderful ‘what if’ that I’ve wondered about myself. Cheers, friend!

[@eric212234]

I'm still a little fuzzy on 'how' we could hide within a black hole. Wouldn't you have to orbit at the speed of light?

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Or very close to it, but that's less hard than it sounds, you always can pick up enough speed to orbit an object while falling toward it.

[@akairibbon4658]

You are SOOO optimistic lol. I sure wish I could be. I don't think we'll really survive another 300 years. People are way too greedy/evil.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

They were pretty greedy 300 years ago too, and 3000, we're still here.

[@akairibbon4658]

@@isaacarthurSFIA I can't argue with facts lol. Go fusion!

[@BrazilianBikini38]

@@isaacarthurSFIA on a slightly side note to that: Dr. Arthur you mentioned in your VPN add that you were Chairman of the Board of Elections in your area, and that hackers were frequent and inventive in their attacks. Have you seen any successful break ins that are after voting manipulation? Would you even see any? (definition of successful would be NOT getting caught)? In addition, you mention VPN stops "unlawful government surveillance". That implies that the government is still doing surveillance on people, as long as it is "legal". Personally I am against even that, as what is "legal" is in the hands of some very shady people defining it on their own political ideology and megalomaniac power desires. Could you clarify how much and what is "legally" getting through the VPN?

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

@@BrazilianBikini38 I'd rather not comment toward anything election-fraud concerned from the channel platform, as even with disclaimers I could be viewed as speaking on behalf of my Board or the Secretary of State at that point. It a happens but rarely and especially rarely in Ohio, but the typical concern is actually about election board website and social media security, e.g. a facebook page a local board maintains for public outreach that is not in anyway connected to voting machines but might get hacked and post a big "Election cancelled tomorrow" post or 'polls open at noon' instead of the normal 630am. That is the typical hacking that gets attempted in every state, in Ohio no election machine is capable of being connected to the internet or allowed to be, but that's not universal. As to VPNs and 'unlawful', I think in this context they're assuming the government (not necessarily the US either) often does so on people without lawful warrants and protects against that, most VPNs do have conditions for helping law enforcement that are policies you can find on their website, typically for child abuse, I don't know NordVPN's in details though, other than that I read it through some years back and found it proper.

[@BrazilianBikini38]

@@isaacarthurSFIA Thank you for the reply, it was very informative. I accept that you are limited by conflict of interests, and that you have authority limits on what you can say. And I will have to read the EULA of VPN services closely to answer my questions...grrr...I just dont like big intrusive governments, "1984" was a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.

[@noksuan59]

If black holes exist then two possibilities exist, either were inside a black hole or outside a black hole...

[@SkorjOlafsen]

Embrace the power of "and". :)

[@singletona082]

Funny how in your sponsor blurb you go on about cybersecurity, when Nord VPN has had a very embarassing data breech in the past. I get that you need to pay bills. But still.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

Hey, it's less embarrassing than Raid Shadow Legends!

[@singletona082]

@@SkorjOlafsen Wouldn't surprise me if they haven't asked him.

[@js70371]

Better than Manscape. Hate those commercials lol 🤦‍♂️😂🍻

[@MantraHerbInchSin]

Ooooh yeah! New SFIA with black holes!

[@exponentialknowledge]

Good stuff as always, Isaac

[@medexamtoolscom]

There are hits, and there are misses, and then there are misses of fantastical wrongness on the level of velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision". NO, actually, you definitely can't have anything survive inside a compact object's event horizon without it all collapsing into a singularity. Proving this is actually something that was famously done by Penrose for which he was finally given the nobel prize in 2020. Inside the event horizon, space is falling faster than light. Let that sink in for a moment. No you can't have anything in a stable orbit inside an event horizon, or even anywhere near it, the closest in orbit possible is known as the photon sphere and it is far outside the event horizon. If you're inside an event horizon, the very space you occupy will be dragged down at faster than the speed of light. Unless you're really talking about a black hole with trillions of solar masses and a schwarzschild radius measured in light years, anything inside the event horizon is going to be destroyed VERY quickly, and if there isn't a singularity yet, there will be soon. Of course you could last for years if it is that large, but it will still come to an end. If the observable universe is inside a black hole, there will be an edge approaching us that will snuff us out of existence without much or any warning, and there could already be a singularity (if not, there will be eventually). Perhaps that is what the great attractor is and that is where we'll meet our doom.

[@lewis7315]

How humanity can "easily" :)> continue after total entropy ... :)>after all the stars run down and everything goes dark...making another great video for you to do!!! Then, "they" will laugh at Both of us!! it is answered by my creation senario, mentioned below... basically, we just move to the parallel universe the black hole is right now creating with all the matter from our present universe!!! to explain; BLACK HOLES Black holes are really simple... In the Big Inning, white holes erupted / vomited out mass and energy from other parallel universes, creating galaxies across our universe... Beginning the expansion.. Nowadays, mostly all these white holes have become black holes, and our universe’s space time is slowly disappearing down these black rabbit holes back to the universe it originally came from... This spacetime vortex explains why the outer rim of galaxies rotate how they do!!! The universe's radiation background consists of supernova wave fronts.. So, now you know how and why, with no dark matter existing or needed !!! :)> you can email me my Nobel prize now :) Or just send me a belly laugh!! Either way, I know that I'm right !!! Lewis

[@JohnDlugosz]

You're wrong about your explanation of Dark Energy. New space is not being created inside us or inside the galaxy. To quote the Woody Allen film _Annie Hall_ , "Brooklyn is not Expanding!" It's not that space is uniformly expanding and gravity overcomes this slight repulsion. This would be noticed in our measurement of G which would vary with scale. Rather, the Friedman Equations show that space is rescaled where there is no mass; that is, in the cosmic voids. More correctly, the rescaling depends inversely on mass, though I don't recall to what exponent. This is explained very lucidly in Sean Carroll's lockdown project, _The Greatest Questions in the Universe_ video series here on KZbin. I don't recall which episode specifically, but you can look at those dealing with GR as opposed to other subjects. Thus, your subsequent discussion of Dark Energy used near a black hole is nonsense. You'd need to insert a segment speculating that D.E. is not (entirely) due to "Einstein's Greatest Blunder", but more generally gravity may be more complex than we think (e.g. TeVeS). Note that another _force_ would not work. Which brings me to another mistake: You should have learned in your studies that Roger Penrose famously proved that there _must_ be a singularity. Also, straightforward GR predicts "taffy pulling" effects inside the event horizon, where one dimension alternates its size rapidly while the other two stay put. I think we would have noticed that! I'm not so sure about being able to see out of a black hole. Animations of simulations show our view as we approach the E.H. that the sky is withdrawing into a smaller and smaller patch opposite the direction of the BH, like we are looking up a well. Crossing the EH this pinches off completely. Recall that when crossing the EH we swap time and space dimensions: the singularity is in our future, and the outside universe is in our _past_ , not a spacial direction in which we can look.

[@VYBEKAT]

Thank you for explaining some of these details i didn't understand before. Like why the rate of expansion increases with distance

[@mrnnhnz]

I can usually follow along pretty well, but today I think I'm the one who's "...dense enough to be a black hole." ! I guess you lost me fairly early on when you said that inside the event horizon of the black hole it might be fairly rarified. I don't get that. I thought gravity was so strong meaning everything was squished down insanely bigly (like my scientific language?) so much so, in fact, that even light couldn't get away from being squished. What am I getting wrong? I wrote that about a third of the way in, but persevered to the end, and managed to understand one or two things. Glad you mentioned that even the pros find it confusing! Happy New Year all!

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

A black hole in reality, is NOT what you think it is. The Schwarzschild solution cannot be reached in reality since it is the asymptotic result of gravitational collapse after INFINITE TIME. A REAL black hole has neither a firm event horizon nor a central singularity. It is a tightly gravitationally bound region of space-time with highly compact matter in the center. Here is the life cycle of galactic black hole as it would happen in reality. A detailed but non-technical look at how a galactic black hole can be born, grow, and ultimately die. This scenario goes beyond the stationary Schwarzschild solution to speculate about what actually happens during the life of a black hole at a galactic center. The Schwarzschild solution is the asymptotic solution after an infinite time, which cannot happen in reality. In a real black hole, there is neither a singularity nor an event horizon. The situation is more complicated. This is a description of the kind of black hole that exists in the center of most galaxies and why such a black hole nearly always exists. We begin with a newly condensing galaxy in the form of a vast ball of gas and dust collapsing under the force of gravity, without considering where the gas and dust came from. As the cloud grows smaller, eventually at least the central sphere of the cloud will approach the Schwarzschild radius Rs=2*G*M/R*R where Rs=Schwarzschild radius G=Newton's gravitational constant M=mass contained in radius R R=radius of sphere containing mass M A given sphere of matter becomes a black hole EXACTLY when Rs becomes equal to R. This will happen when sufficient Mass falls into the sphere of radius R. I will refer to the direction toward the center of mass of the collapsing cloud as "down" and the direction away from the center of mass as "up". Please note that Rs, unlike the radius of a sphere of ordinary matter, is proportional to the FIRST POWER of the mass enclosed, while the radius of a sphere of ordinary matter goes as the CUBE ROOT of the mass enclosed. This is a critical difference. It means that a black hole can be created by matter of LOW DENSITY providing that the sphere under consideration is large enough. Example: A sphere the size of the Solar system out to the Kuiper Belt filled with ordinary air at normal pressure would constitute a black hole. Suppose that you were on a piece of dust orbiting around the center of this contracting ball of dust and gas. Suppose further, that you were too small to suffer from any gravitational tidal effects and immune to high temperatures. (Clearly impossible for a human.) As more dust and gas fall in at varying speeds, the Schwarzschild radius, Rs, gets larger. As mass falls in toward the center "down", the mass of the central region increases, so the gravitational red shift increases. As you look from your vantage point, you see the central region gradually redden. As you look up, you see the matter become bluer. Also, as the central mass increases, your orbital diameter decreases due to the increasing mass below you. Eventually, the increasing mass creates a sphere that contains you and is smaller than Rs. You have become a part of a black hole and yet you know of neither a singularity nor an event horizon. When you look down, everything is reddened and slowed. When you look up everything has become bluer and all processes are speeded up. A planet that orbited a star in an Earth year is now seen to swing around it once per your second. The light from above shifts into the X-ray band, then the gamma-ray band. This light is all of the star light and cosmic microwave background blue shifted. These gamma-rays are sufficiently energetic to blast apart all chemical bonds and many of the atomic nuclei. The temperature of all of the matter increases due to the high energy gamma-rays. The incoming light energy causes the mass of the black hole to grow. A tiny fraction of the photons that are pointed straight up manage to escape to infinity. From the inside, the "Uncertainty Principle" permits some photons to escape. From the outside, this is seen as Hawking radiation. As the external Universe expands, it also cools. There is less and less light coming in and it is at lower frequencies. Eventually, the heating from infalling gamma-rays has weakened so that the escaping photons are at a higher temperature than the outside, which has fallen to a background temperature of far less than a trillionth of a degree. Now, the black hole begins to lose mass. Energy from the external blue shifted radiation continues to heat the inside of the black hole, particularly the center. Associated with the red and blue shifting, there is a change in the rate of the passage of time. The time rate difference between inside and outside is such that what has seemed to you like a mere few months has been trillions of years outside the black hole. The electrons, nuclei, and neutrinos that happen to be driven straight up fast enough manage to escape the leaky "event horizon" which is really only approximate. The center of the cloud below you gradually warms as the red shift decreases and time speeds up relative to you. The loss of particles causes the Schwarzschild radius to decrease. The center no longer appears as red as it once was. From the outside, the black hole appears to be both decreasing in mass and increasing in temperature. The center grows warmer as the red shift decreases. More and more photons manage to escape. Eventually neutrinos, electrons, and nuclei begin to escape. From the outside, the black hole grows smaller and hotter. As the mass decreases and the black hole radius decreases, there comes a time when the radius reaches zero. This is preceded by a huge escape of particles. The black hole has ceased to exist. A vast amount of time has passed. The escaped particles are added to the thin bleakness of space. All the while, there has never been a singularity and the event horizon was always fuzzy and never sharply defined as is the case in the Schwarzschild model. The life cycle of the black hole has ended.

[@aneikei]

Black holes don't have different densities. Moreover, they certainly don't have densities similar to that of water, or even air if they're big enough. Think about the logic of that. If light cannot escape that means the escape velocity is the speed of light. So gravity is strong enough to prevent light from escaping but not enough to overcome and further increase something past the density of water? That makes no sense. Even neutron stars that allow light to escape are still much denser than water.

[@hughmungusbungusfungus4618]

Hey, your advertisement for Nord VPN is incorrect. A VPN only encrypts your data after it reaches their server, so it would not protect you from a man-in-the-middle attack like the one you described. Furthermore, VPNs don't really offer protection from hackers anyway, but are there to ensure privacy.

[@joseamadorsilva7395]

I was elected awhile back as Judge of elections for my voting division...the basic equivalent of a dog catcher's apprentice's understudy's nephew. The best part of of that role though was being able to modify a judicial order from a county judge's ruling and having immunity from arrest and prosecution during and in the course of my official duties on election day.

[@Negative_Clover]

You could totally leave a neutron star ring. If you could move the stars in the first place then you could conceivably dissolve the singularity by moving the ring out wider. The inverse square law still works. This is probably the only way to enter and exit an event horizon. You could store loads of energy and mass this way conceivably fighting off entropy. For a late universe species this would be awesome. You have time dialation working in your favor. You can manufacture your mega projects in what seems like no time at all. you can run supercomputers coming up with new ways to recycle and maintain Energy reserves. Neutron stars last a really long time.

[@basildaoust2821]

OK, I get that I'm an idiot. Check. Now I do not understand why we can see this cosmic microwave stuff? Like I get that it existed, fine, shouldn't it be like a bomb going boom. We have this burst outward, now wait a week and look toward the place the explosion happened, we do not get blinded by a bright flash from the explosion, it has moved on. So I do not get why we see this stuff the cosmic stuff that invaded my old TV. Why? why has it not passed us by? Like we have a couple black holes merge, you get like one chance to catch that on the sensors we built, it doesn't fly past every second of every day for all time. I'm confused. I guess I also do not get why getting better telescopes lets us see farther back in time. Does that mean we are moving away from the center of the universe, even though we have no idea where that center is?

[@hazzah5572]

So you're telling me universes that get selected for in multiverse theory are the ones that spawn the most black holes. Consequently, the total number of black holes in the multiverse is always increasing. Maan how much acid do you need to take to come up with these theories. 🤪