/sci/ - Science & Math

I think you need to start reading elsewhere.

>>7485924
The hypothesis is moot if it does not make new predictions.

>>7485932
well, but it does. it also explains things that we see in the universe.

>>7485938
Wich one?
Wich phenomenon does it falsifiably predict that no other theory does?

>>7485938
Oh yeah? Please elaborate. What exactly does "woah dude, what if we're... like... all inside a black hole maaaaaaaaaaaan?!" explain?

>>7485924
>I also read that the universes basically "evolve" in a direction that produces the biggest amount of black holes which kinda explains why there's so many of them in our universe.

>I read that the universe makes a lot of black holes which is why there are a lot of black holes.

>>7485946
>>7485945
Dr Lee Smolin and Dr John Wheeler explain:

>SPACE.com: How does your theory of the dynamical evolution of the universe work?

>Smolin: The idea is that the universe evolved in a way which is very analogous to natural selection in a population, say, of bacteria. To do this the universe needs to reproduce itself, and I took over an older idea by John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt, who were pioneers of quantum gravity. Their idea was that black holes become the seeds of the birth of new universes.

>John Wheeler had already speculated that when this happens, the laws of nature are reborn again, in the new baby universe; he called it reprocessing the universe. What I had to add to this to make it work like a model of natural selection, was that the changes passed form parent to child universe are very slight so there can be an accumulation of fitness. This hypothesis leads to the conclusion that assuming our universe is a typical member of this population of universes as it develops after many, many generations, that the universe is going to be finely tuned to produce many black holes. That leads to the next hypotheses that if you change the laws, and the numbers that specify the laws, then typically you're going to make a universe that makes less black holes, and that's something that leads to predictions that can be tested.

>>7485945
>Wich phenomenon does it falsifiably predict that no other theory does?
it explains why the constants are what they are.

ps: your spelling is atrocious.

>>7485957
>Dr Lee Smolin
Nopenopenopenopenopneopneopneopneopneoneopenoepneonpeonpeoneponeponeponeponepnope.

>>7485960
He's one of the greatest physicists alive you dumfuck. And infinitely smarter than you.

>>7485959
>it explains why the constants are what they are

Source? Paper? Derivation?

>>7485964
>one of the greatest physicists alive
>getting none of your last 5 papers published
>working with autistic children for fame
ok.

>>7485957
Instead of copy-pasting pop-sci, can we have some actual sci please?

>>7485957
Not falsifiable, there moot.
This is just as viable as "A wizzard who likes fine tuned black holes made the universe."
This is just the same as arguments for and against the existence of god - pointless.

>>7485959
So does any other crackpot hypothesis claim to do.
Ye olde problem of induction.
p.s. your face is atrocious.

Didn't Stephen Hawking recently come out with a thesis that disproves the existence of blackholes?

>>7486002
No.

>>7486002

No, he did not.

Black holes are being directly observed for years now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

>>7485924
interesting idea.. black hole... hmmm

>>7486002
Stephen Hawking believed that black holes could not exist for quite a while in his youth. He has since then revoked that idea and is probably the world's leading expert on black holes and how they work.

>>7486259
Nobody is an expert on how black holes work. There are many experts in the subject of the THEORY of what black holes are and how they might work.

>>7486259
If you were to poll a large number of actual PhD physicists and ask them to produce a list of names of other physicists who have made the greatest contributions to the field in the past 100 years, I doubt Hawking's name would make the top 20.

>>7485986
>Not falsifiable, there moot.
But it is falsifiable!

>>7486545

>I doubt Hawking's name would make the top 20.

How about my nigga Feynman?

>>7485924
This is the bubble universe theory. It is used as one possible theory to explain away the theoretical destruction of information caused by black holes, one of several possible theories. It sounds to me like you have been watching too much Through the Wormhole. It is just a bunch of pop Sci nonsense. Theory of the month basically, and ultimately useless as a hypothesis because it present no means of experimentation to test it

>>7485946
Top kek

>>7486660
>How about my nigga Feynman?
QFT, of course he would be.

>>7486663
>This is the bubble universe theory. It is used as one possible theory to explain away the theoretical destruction of information caused by black holes, one of several possible theories.
What are the others?

>It sounds to me like you have been watching too much Through the Wormhole.
Nope. Don't watch pop-sci bullshit. I watched Lee Smolin's lectrue.

>>7486002
I don't know about anything like that hawking has published recently, however some recent advancements in quantum theory have suggested that SINGULARITIES may not be possible. Black holes are 100% real and can be detected fairly easily based on gravitational lensing. The notion however that particles can condense down to an infinitesimal point seems less and less likely based on current understanding. Hell the laws of electromagnetism alone kinda put a damper on the notion. For example the strength of repulsion between 2 like charged particles, electrons for example, increases as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them. Meaning that as the distance between the particles aproaches 0 (occupying the same space in an infinitely dense point) the force of repulsion aproaches infinity. Assuming both particles are at the center of a black hole then they are both within the same reference frame and relativistic effects of acceleration from gravity don't really apply

>>7486660
>How about my nigga Feynman?

Top 5. Easily.

>>7486682
The other theory that comes to mind immediately is the membrane theory, which hypothesizes basically as matter is drawn into a black hole rather than the information being destroyed the passage of the materiel through the event horizon alters the hawking radiation emitted by the black hole, basically leaving a physical record imprinted on the event horizon of all matter the black hole has ever absorbed

This sounds like some bullshit that Stephen Hawking would spout in one of his attempts to remain relevant.

>>7485924
is it even possible to have a universe inside of a black hole???