> while also matching the universe’s historical expansion rate without requiring dark energy.
I wonder which number this matches, since we’ve repeatedly measured 2 different values and we can’t figure out why they disagree. As much as this is currently non-peer reviewed ideas that probably won’t lead anywhere (as with most news articles about new research), radical ideas like this are probably what is needed to get to the truth of the Hubble tension and other paradoxes in cosmology.
Fascinating idea. It reminds me of an attempt from a few decades ago where scientists recalculated all fundamental constants from fundamental properties instead of the rather arbitrary quantities we're used to. A surprising finding of that project was that all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1, with two big exceptions: and the age of the universe at 10^40 and the gravitational constant at 10^-40, suggestiong an inverse relationship between the two.
It was probably a coincidence, but now there's another model with changing constants. I'd love to see where this goes.
That was most likely some bogus research paper written by people who did not understand what they were computing.
Even among professional physicists, a surprisingly large number of them do not have clear ideas about the meanings of the fundamental constants and of the fundamental units of measurement. The reason is that the subject of metrology, even if it is the fundament of physics, is almost never treated correctly in physics textbooks, if it is mentioned at all.
Ignoring the extra constants that might be needed in the theory of nuclear strong and weak forces, and also the extra constants that may be needed in certain variants of Einstein's theory of gravitation (e.g. "the cosmological constant"), in the physics that is encountered by the majority of people there are only 2 fundamental constants, which determine the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and the strength of the gravitational interaction, i.e. the constant of Coulomb's law of electric attraction and the Newtonian constant of gravitation.
None of these 2 constants can be claimed to be particularly close to 1, even when expressed in natural units, much less when arbitrary units are used. These 2 constants can be expressed in several equivalent ways, but none of the different values obtained thus has any unexpected values.
For example, a constant that is equivalent with Coulomb's constant is the so-called "fine structure constant" a.k.a. Sommerfeld's constant, about which a huge number of aberrant research papers have been written by people who did not know what it means. The "fine structure constant" is the speed of a particle with unit charge that revolves around a fixed particle with unit charge, when having unit angular momentum (in natural units). That speed is determined by the equality between the electric attraction force and the inertial centrifugal force, so it is a measure for the strength of the electric force and it is inversely proportional with the constant from Coulomb's law.
The poor handling of metrology in modern physics textbooks is in contrast with classic masterpieces, like Maxwell's "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", which started with a good description of how physical quantities are measured and how systems of fundamental units of measurement are chosen, because without such a solid base all the following theory can be flawed, as it frequently happens in some modern theoretical research papers, where bogus numbers are computed.
In the SI system of units, besides the 2 constants of Newton and Coulomb there are a few other "fundamental constants", which are fake fundamental constants, because they are some exact numbers, chosen by convention instead of being measured experimentally, which are chosen is such a way so that the legal units, like meter, second, kilogram, have values approximately equal with the values corresponding to their old historical definitions.
> in the physics that is encountered by the majority of people there are only 2 fundamental constants, which determine the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and the strength of the gravitational interaction, i.e. the constant of Coulomb's law of electric attraction and the Newtonian constant of gravitation
The speed of light in a vacuum is pretty important too, but I don't think that you can derive that exclusively from the Coulomb constant (without also allowing the permittivity/permeability of free space). Planck's constant is also important, depending on what you consider "physics that is encountered by the majority of people".
> The poor handling of metrology in modern physics textbooks
It's not really covered in textbooks, but all my physics labs had extensive coverage of error propagation, dimensional analysis, and running statistics on measured data.
> In the SI system of units, besides the 2 constants of Newton and Coulomb there are a few other "fundamental constants", which are fake fundamental constants
I agree that Boltzmann's and Avogadro's constants are "fake", the elementary charge is borderline, and the candela is a joke, but I wouldn't put c or ℏ in this category—time is special in physics (the arrow of time and such), so the relation between time and space (c) seems fundamental and non-trivial; similarly, conservation of energy is probably the most important conservation law, so the relation between frequency and energy (ℏ) seems fundamental too.
I'm aware of natural units, but I don't think that the fact that you can give c and ℏ values of one makes them any less fundamental.
No, that is not true. The speed of light is not a fundamental constant in modern physics. It is just an arbitrary exact number with no relationship whatsoever with physics, but only with human history.
As first proposed by Maxwell in 1870, currently the unit of time is derived from the unit of distance by imposing the condition that the constants from the expressions of the electric force and of the magnetic force are equal.
This condition ensures that the strength of the electromagnetic interaction is described by a single fundamental constant, that from the law of Coulomb.
A consequence of this condition proposed by Maxwell is that the velocity of light in vacuum becomes an exact constant, whose value depends only on the choice of fundamental units of measurement, and not on any measurement. In a "natural" system of fundamental units, the numeric value of the speed of light in vacuum is "1".
Probably a misunderstanding of the concept of normalizing units to '1' so that, for example, the speed of light is is simply unity instead of arbitrary Terran units like 299 792 458 m/s or 186 282 miles/s.
Alternatively, and more likely, it's based on the "relative" strengths of the different forces, where ratios of about 10^40 do tend to turn up.
For example, the ratio of electric force versus gravitational attractive forces for a proton and an electron is 2.3 x 10^39 which is close.
PS: A fun thing to numerological coincidence to consider is that 2^128 is about 3.4 * 10^38, which is weirdly close. It's almost like gravity is "rounding error" on a universe simulator made with 128-bit CPUs. Similarly, 2^256 is close to the Eddington number of ~10^80, which is the estimated number of particles in the Universe...
Does someone else get overwhelmed and just give up whenever you start thinking of how everything was created? It's an endless streak. I think by design – as in obviously if you start thinking what made a -> what made that made a -> … and very soon you have a recursive loop without an exit condition. So basically universe creation is possible case of OOM if ever it ran on any fathomable system, unless we posit that the resources will keep increasing for that system. I mean it's the same if we insert a deity like entity in this, because then there's who created that deity. As in – you know there's no end to it, unless you accept that one "<that> just happened" or "whatever".
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean! But it's important to remember that we can't presume any physical rules to apply to "before the universe". So while our reality is bound by cause and effect, it's entirely possible that the creation of the universe did not necessitate a cause.
In other words: insufficient data to provide a meaningful answer. Hopefully we'll find ways to gather more data! :)
Some posit existence is the default condition.. pretty weird huh? But consider mathematics, it doesn't depend on matter. And.. isn't all of what exists describable by numbers?
We're like a goldfish in a bowl. So what can you do except browsing xkcd and be filled with that wonder:
I've never liked big bang as a concept. It sounds cartoonish for me like geocentric model. It's way too convenient that entire space evolved from a single point long time ago. It sounds like a child story in comparison to everything else we can prove so far.
When scientists say “the universe” in the context of the big bang, it is usually shorthand for the temporal-spacetime envelope that we’ve been able to observe and make inferences within, the observational limits being traceable to that era.
Scientific evidence has not established that nothing existed before the big bang.
Children are perfectly capable of understanding that there are limits to what we have been able to obtain data about, so they don’t really need us to mix scientific understanding with simplifying dogma.
I think they should have reused "the unmoved mover" from Ancient Greek philosophy. It was their equivalent of the Big Bang theory, but in the more abstract sense.
It didn’t expand from a point, it expanded at the same time from everywhere. Other things could have happened before that expansion, but currently there’s no way to know.
My hunch is, it's the inside of a giant black hole and expansion we perceive is new matter falling into that void. The start of our universe is just when the outside thing collapsed into a black hole. So it's probably recursions all the way up.
I could never wrap my mind around "point-like" entities, like BHs supposed to be, and after all before BH collapse we have something like neutron stars.. extremely dense matter, kind of a perfect crystal ball made of a strange kind of matter.
So in my view BHs are just that, except you have that informational isolation layer (EH) that allows this giant crystal computer to crunch its quantum computations ad infinitum, simulating an endless array of possible universes.
It doesn't make sense that time has a 0 or at least we approach 0, but space doesn't. We can extrapolate a point when time started, but we can't to that with space as it always was this big. I'm leaning more towards timescape cosmology where we could assume the time is not homogenous in space.
Peer review, under the zealot conceptualization, is a committee of people advising other readers to take the committee’s word for it.
More honestly, scientists must be independently literate beyond what peer reviewers endorse, both because peer reviewers cannot cover every report ever produced and also because peer reviewers sometimes get it wrong.
Every scientific reader must function autonomously, engaging critically and thoughtfully with the intellectual material they consume. Maybe a child would expect everything to be curated for them by tastemakers and then handed over on a silver platter, but lazy consumption is not the purpose of being a scientist. Scientists are meant to participate actively in the scientific process, not to merely receive wisdom from others.
So yesterday (which is the past) I went out to the pub with a couple of friends. This past is created by my current observation of it and understanding of it. If I stop observing or understanding that past it will cease to have happened. Is that it?
The point is more "the past as you see it is created by your understanding", in a few years, you might not remember this night well or at all, have a twisted memory blending other pub nights, have interpreted some interactions with your friends in a different way that they did etc...
This sounds like a description of human memory, whereas your original comment and the context implied a description of the nature of the universe... which is it?
If true, then that's a heavy hit for the big bang theory intro song.
I don't think they can just replace the fourteen with a twenty-seven, without the whole flow breaking completely.
i used to think it was cringe and maybe it is, but many normies love that show and watching it with them when they find it funny is actually endearing.
i could do with the jokes and watching it passively as a timesink, but my genz brain just can't get used to the canned laughs and claps. doesn't even matter which show, it feels soooo weird to see actors freeze for 1-2 seconds after every joke, like non-stop, repeating 4th-wall breaks.
i think i get you. i feel like you guys grew up with netflix type shows. im millennial and also never got into sitcoms, i find it hard to turn off my brain lol.
i prefer the higher quality of modern shows that have richer narratives and are more immersive?
but sitcoms for me have a sentimental value. my dad would come home tired after work and my parents would watch everybody loves raymond, and before sleep me and my dad would watch fresh prince of bel air and cosby show.
big bang is the one of the last shows before my parents moved on to forming a youtube vlogs addiction.
> i feel like you guys grew up with netflix type shows
that is somewhat true, at least from the point where i was able to choose what to watch myself. i used to eat lunch at my grandpa's place as a kid because he lived closest to my school, after eating i then watched Big Bang because that's what was on TV. also watched a couple of seasons of "How I Met Your Mother" with my dad during the same time.
then about 10 years later my gf wanted to watch Big Bang together and i noticed that i just couldn't do it anymore. tanked through three seasons and then had to give up.
i did watch through all of "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" a couple of years ago, so it's not like i got an overall issue with "older" sitcoms, my brain just can't process canned laughs anymore, to the point where it legitimately pisses me off. even if there's a joke i actually find funny, as soon as the laughs and claps come in, my smile vanishes.
considering the birthyear-ranges for Millenials and Gen-Z, i am in theory an "old zoomer". i did witness the birth of YouTube on my WindowsXP-PC, and later TikTok on a smartphone, maybe that mix of experience causes such weird mismatches :D
There's no way that it hasn't existed for infinity, for the value where universe = literally everything. It can't come from nothing, so it has always existed. I am obviously not aware of the formal definition of universe, considering there are theories of our universe being one of many bubbling in the cosmic foam.
> There's no way that it hasn't existed for infinity
I'm not disagreeing, but this is _slightly_ shifting the goal posts. When scientists in this field talk about the 'age of the universe', it's nearly always the short form of 'the time distance from now back to the big bang, beyond which there is no way to see beyond'.
Since Hubble launched there's been a near complete consensus on the bounds that were radically reduced down from before. Perhaps you were born in the seventies or earlier? Well before CMB studies and the Hubble telescope launched.
There's just been a ton of science trying to reconcile the difference in the upper and lower bounds that are far closer than they were before. But it's a few billion years, not doubling or halving.
It also depends what one name universe. That universe is ageless is not fundamentally incompatible with a BigBang like event occurring at some point in it.
We know nothing about the true nature of consciousness, and we can't describe time except through our own subjective experience of it. Spacetime might not even be the fundamental layer of the universe, it's just what we all collectively experience through consciousness. So until we figure out what we are, these questions will remain unanswered.
"What we are" and "how consciousness emerges and what it implies about itself and its relation to everything else" are two distinct considerations which only partially overlap.
For the second part, it's completely fine to dismiss the first question as irrelevant as "what is 'it' in 'it rains '". That is, language artifact are not evidence of ontological correspondance in actual things happening. So, "we", "being", and "me" can be regarded as illusions. The illusion itself actually happen, but it's more straight forward interpretion is generally misguiding.
The first approach on the other hand can lead to dismiss consciousness as relevant tool to reach some absolute substance which is postulated as ultimate reality. That is, there is some "being", and "I" and "we", just as there are actual ideal spheres in existence in a platonic sense.
Both don't give much credits to the most trivial intuitive interpretation of phenomena, but they kind of point to very different directions.
In a sense, time is just different fractions of counting the number of times a planet of monkeys goes around the sun. The monkeys then apply this limited concept of time to the entire universe. But then in the grand scheme of things, everything that is now was nothing at one point and presumably will also be nothing again, then the only evidence of time are the monkeys who tried to keep count of how many times they orbited a star. When everything returns to nothingness, time will have been an illusion.
We don't know if anything ever was and will return to nothingness and even if nothingness is a valid concept. We don't know if cosmos as a whole don't experiment a form of consciousness, which don't need to be anthropomorphized to be clear.
And illusion implies that something exits, where the illusion can be casted and experimented.
Every year or so we hear that super intelligence is around the corner and is also impossible, so I'll ignore LLMs entirely until there's new information.
Discussed before:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714228 (249 Comments)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41847656 (79 Comments)
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006 (40 Comments)
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36784319 (1 Comment)
Needless to say, this result is not considered credible by the scientific community. It's borderline crackpot territory if you ask me.
Further reading: https://www.iflscience.com/why-its-extremely-unlikely-the-un...
> while also matching the universe’s historical expansion rate without requiring dark energy.
I wonder which number this matches, since we’ve repeatedly measured 2 different values and we can’t figure out why they disagree. As much as this is currently non-peer reviewed ideas that probably won’t lead anywhere (as with most news articles about new research), radical ideas like this are probably what is needed to get to the truth of the Hubble tension and other paradoxes in cosmology.
Fascinating idea. It reminds me of an attempt from a few decades ago where scientists recalculated all fundamental constants from fundamental properties instead of the rather arbitrary quantities we're used to. A surprising finding of that project was that all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1, with two big exceptions: and the age of the universe at 10^40 and the gravitational constant at 10^-40, suggestiong an inverse relationship between the two.
It was probably a coincidence, but now there's another model with changing constants. I'd love to see where this goes.
> A surprising finding of that project was that all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1
This does not mean anything, at all.
I think it implies that the recalculated value was close to the original value (ie scaled by 1) for most constants apart from the 2 mentioned.
The part they purport means something follows that. We would expect most constants to be fairly close to 1.
Probably that 1 is a divine number, and all other numbers are inferior.
Or it’s just humans project meaning into a meaningless universe.
> Or it’s just humans project meaning into a meaningless universe.
What else is there to do?
"a man hath no better thing under the sun than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry"
Eat and procreate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis
That's longer ago than I thought, but it sounds like it's the same thing.
That was most likely some bogus research paper written by people who did not understand what they were computing.
Even among professional physicists, a surprisingly large number of them do not have clear ideas about the meanings of the fundamental constants and of the fundamental units of measurement. The reason is that the subject of metrology, even if it is the fundament of physics, is almost never treated correctly in physics textbooks, if it is mentioned at all.
Ignoring the extra constants that might be needed in the theory of nuclear strong and weak forces, and also the extra constants that may be needed in certain variants of Einstein's theory of gravitation (e.g. "the cosmological constant"), in the physics that is encountered by the majority of people there are only 2 fundamental constants, which determine the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and the strength of the gravitational interaction, i.e. the constant of Coulomb's law of electric attraction and the Newtonian constant of gravitation.
None of these 2 constants can be claimed to be particularly close to 1, even when expressed in natural units, much less when arbitrary units are used. These 2 constants can be expressed in several equivalent ways, but none of the different values obtained thus has any unexpected values.
For example, a constant that is equivalent with Coulomb's constant is the so-called "fine structure constant" a.k.a. Sommerfeld's constant, about which a huge number of aberrant research papers have been written by people who did not know what it means. The "fine structure constant" is the speed of a particle with unit charge that revolves around a fixed particle with unit charge, when having unit angular momentum (in natural units). That speed is determined by the equality between the electric attraction force and the inertial centrifugal force, so it is a measure for the strength of the electric force and it is inversely proportional with the constant from Coulomb's law.
The poor handling of metrology in modern physics textbooks is in contrast with classic masterpieces, like Maxwell's "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", which started with a good description of how physical quantities are measured and how systems of fundamental units of measurement are chosen, because without such a solid base all the following theory can be flawed, as it frequently happens in some modern theoretical research papers, where bogus numbers are computed.
In the SI system of units, besides the 2 constants of Newton and Coulomb there are a few other "fundamental constants", which are fake fundamental constants, because they are some exact numbers, chosen by convention instead of being measured experimentally, which are chosen is such a way so that the legal units, like meter, second, kilogram, have values approximately equal with the values corresponding to their old historical definitions.
> in the physics that is encountered by the majority of people there are only 2 fundamental constants, which determine the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and the strength of the gravitational interaction, i.e. the constant of Coulomb's law of electric attraction and the Newtonian constant of gravitation
The speed of light in a vacuum is pretty important too, but I don't think that you can derive that exclusively from the Coulomb constant (without also allowing the permittivity/permeability of free space). Planck's constant is also important, depending on what you consider "physics that is encountered by the majority of people".
> The poor handling of metrology in modern physics textbooks
It's not really covered in textbooks, but all my physics labs had extensive coverage of error propagation, dimensional analysis, and running statistics on measured data.
> In the SI system of units, besides the 2 constants of Newton and Coulomb there are a few other "fundamental constants", which are fake fundamental constants
I agree that Boltzmann's and Avogadro's constants are "fake", the elementary charge is borderline, and the candela is a joke, but I wouldn't put c or ℏ in this category—time is special in physics (the arrow of time and such), so the relation between time and space (c) seems fundamental and non-trivial; similarly, conservation of energy is probably the most important conservation law, so the relation between frequency and energy (ℏ) seems fundamental too.
I'm aware of natural units, but I don't think that the fact that you can give c and ℏ values of one makes them any less fundamental.
No, that is not true. The speed of light is not a fundamental constant in modern physics. It is just an arbitrary exact number with no relationship whatsoever with physics, but only with human history.
As first proposed by Maxwell in 1870, currently the unit of time is derived from the unit of distance by imposing the condition that the constants from the expressions of the electric force and of the magnetic force are equal.
This condition ensures that the strength of the electromagnetic interaction is described by a single fundamental constant, that from the law of Coulomb.
A consequence of this condition proposed by Maxwell is that the velocity of light in vacuum becomes an exact constant, whose value depends only on the choice of fundamental units of measurement, and not on any measurement. In a "natural" system of fundamental units, the numeric value of the speed of light in vacuum is "1".
Agreed 100%
If you pick other units, you can make the constants 1. You don't really need to 'recalculate' something for that.
And while this can sometimes be useful to reframe your thoughts and even lead to new insights it doesn't really have an inherent meaning.
> all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1
What could that possibly mean?
Probably a misunderstanding of the concept of normalizing units to '1' so that, for example, the speed of light is is simply unity instead of arbitrary Terran units like 299 792 458 m/s or 186 282 miles/s.
There's a few ways of doing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
Alternatively, and more likely, it's based on the "relative" strengths of the different forces, where ratios of about 10^40 do tend to turn up.
For example, the ratio of electric force versus gravitational attractive forces for a proton and an electron is 2.3 x 10^39 which is close.
PS: A fun thing to numerological coincidence to consider is that 2^128 is about 3.4 * 10^38, which is weirdly close. It's almost like gravity is "rounding error" on a universe simulator made with 128-bit CPUs. Similarly, 2^256 is close to the Eddington number of ~10^80, which is the estimated number of particles in the Universe...
We only have to figure how to rowhammer that cpu and finally make Star Trek teleport real. Or escape to other VMs.
Don't row-hammer the fabric of the Universe, it may simply crash and reboot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schild%27s_Ladder
> and the age of the universe at 10^40 and the gravitational constant at 10^-40
I mean that literally doesn't mean anything? It literally depends on the units you choose to use?
if we assume seconds: it's 368,000 billion billion billion years old
if we assume inverse Planck time: it's 0.00539 seconds
I can be less helpful if you like
What? Neither years nor planck time are seconds though
[2023] https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-pre...
Does someone else get overwhelmed and just give up whenever you start thinking of how everything was created? It's an endless streak. I think by design – as in obviously if you start thinking what made a -> what made that made a -> … and very soon you have a recursive loop without an exit condition. So basically universe creation is possible case of OOM if ever it ran on any fathomable system, unless we posit that the resources will keep increasing for that system. I mean it's the same if we insert a deity like entity in this, because then there's who created that deity. As in – you know there's no end to it, unless you accept that one "<that> just happened" or "whatever".
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean! But it's important to remember that we can't presume any physical rules to apply to "before the universe". So while our reality is bound by cause and effect, it's entirely possible that the creation of the universe did not necessitate a cause.
In other words: insufficient data to provide a meaningful answer. Hopefully we'll find ways to gather more data! :)
Easiest way our of that loop is to remember that we're in a simulation :)
How does that do anything? It would just move the question one layer up
not really, since who created the simulation?
Maybe Diane, in "I Don't Know, Timmy, Being God Is a Big Responsibility", or a feedback loop.
https://qntm.org/responsibilit
People living in another simulation? See Neal Stephenson...
Not really a way out.
true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
Some posit existence is the default condition.. pretty weird huh? But consider mathematics, it doesn't depend on matter. And.. isn't all of what exists describable by numbers?
We're like a goldfish in a bowl. So what can you do except browsing xkcd and be filled with that wonder:
https://3d.xkcd.com/505/
One possible falsification of this hypothesis (from earlier this year): https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/547/3/stag430/8507252...
I've never liked big bang as a concept. It sounds cartoonish for me like geocentric model. It's way too convenient that entire space evolved from a single point long time ago. It sounds like a child story in comparison to everything else we can prove so far.
When scientists say “the universe” in the context of the big bang, it is usually shorthand for the temporal-spacetime envelope that we’ve been able to observe and make inferences within, the observational limits being traceable to that era.
Scientific evidence has not established that nothing existed before the big bang.
Children are perfectly capable of understanding that there are limits to what we have been able to obtain data about, so they don’t really need us to mix scientific understanding with simplifying dogma.
Cartoonish/childish: That's why it's called "the Big Bang", it was a mocking reference coined by Fred Hoyle, a leading opponent of the idea.
I think they should have reused "the unmoved mover" from Ancient Greek philosophy. It was their equivalent of the Big Bang theory, but in the more abstract sense.
> It sounds cartoonish for me like heliocentric model.
Do you mean geocentric?
> It's way too convenient that entire space evolved from a single point long time ago.
It didn't evolve from a single point.
Geocentric. My bad, it's morning where I'm currently at. I know it's not a single point but to have an expansion, you must expand from some point.
Also why do we accept doppler shifts as proof if we can't prove the time is uniform in space.
It didn’t expand from a point, it expanded at the same time from everywhere. Other things could have happened before that expansion, but currently there’s no way to know.
My hunch is, it's the inside of a giant black hole and expansion we perceive is new matter falling into that void. The start of our universe is just when the outside thing collapsed into a black hole. So it's probably recursions all the way up.
I could never wrap my mind around "point-like" entities, like BHs supposed to be, and after all before BH collapse we have something like neutron stars.. extremely dense matter, kind of a perfect crystal ball made of a strange kind of matter.
So in my view BHs are just that, except you have that informational isolation layer (EH) that allows this giant crystal computer to crunch its quantum computations ad infinitum, simulating an endless array of possible universes.
Mind-boggling.. I'm in awe.
> it's the inside of a giant black hole
There's no proof black holes have an interior.
Cogito ergo sum?
It doesn't make sense that time has a 0 or at least we approach 0, but space doesn't. We can extrapolate a point when time started, but we can't to that with space as it always was this big. I'm leaning more towards timescape cosmology where we could assume the time is not homogenous in space.
Have there been any peer reviewed papers published into reputable journals?
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/550/1/stag1126/870744...
thats too slow we are not interested in academic beauracracy
Fitting username
/s?
none needed
Yeah, no, if there's no peer review, it's not science. It's you expecting other people to take your word for it.
Peer review, under the zealot conceptualization, is a committee of people advising other readers to take the committee’s word for it.
More honestly, scientists must be independently literate beyond what peer reviewers endorse, both because peer reviewers cannot cover every report ever produced and also because peer reviewers sometimes get it wrong.
Every scientific reader must function autonomously, engaging critically and thoughtfully with the intellectual material they consume. Maybe a child would expect everything to be curated for them by tastemakers and then handed over on a silver platter, but lazy consumption is not the purpose of being a scientist. Scientists are meant to participate actively in the scientific process, not to merely receive wisdom from others.
100 billion stars 100 billion galaxies 100 billion years.
Give or take some orders of magnitude. It is enough to sit in awe
The past is created by your observation and understanding.
So yesterday (which is the past) I went out to the pub with a couple of friends. This past is created by my current observation of it and understanding of it. If I stop observing or understanding that past it will cease to have happened. Is that it?
The point is more "the past as you see it is created by your understanding", in a few years, you might not remember this night well or at all, have a twisted memory blending other pub nights, have interpreted some interactions with your friends in a different way that they did etc...
This sounds like a description of human memory, whereas your original comment and the context implied a description of the nature of the universe... which is it?
If true, then that's a heavy hit for the big bang theory intro song. I don't think they can just replace the fourteen with a twenty-seven, without the whole flow breaking completely.
Good thing nobody watches it any more? Bazinga.
my parents watch it and laugh at all the jokes.
i used to think it was cringe and maybe it is, but many normies love that show and watching it with them when they find it funny is actually endearing.
i could do with the jokes and watching it passively as a timesink, but my genz brain just can't get used to the canned laughs and claps. doesn't even matter which show, it feels soooo weird to see actors freeze for 1-2 seconds after every joke, like non-stop, repeating 4th-wall breaks.
i think i get you. i feel like you guys grew up with netflix type shows. im millennial and also never got into sitcoms, i find it hard to turn off my brain lol.
i prefer the higher quality of modern shows that have richer narratives and are more immersive?
but sitcoms for me have a sentimental value. my dad would come home tired after work and my parents would watch everybody loves raymond, and before sleep me and my dad would watch fresh prince of bel air and cosby show.
big bang is the one of the last shows before my parents moved on to forming a youtube vlogs addiction.
> i feel like you guys grew up with netflix type shows
that is somewhat true, at least from the point where i was able to choose what to watch myself. i used to eat lunch at my grandpa's place as a kid because he lived closest to my school, after eating i then watched Big Bang because that's what was on TV. also watched a couple of seasons of "How I Met Your Mother" with my dad during the same time.
then about 10 years later my gf wanted to watch Big Bang together and i noticed that i just couldn't do it anymore. tanked through three seasons and then had to give up.
i did watch through all of "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" a couple of years ago, so it's not like i got an overall issue with "older" sitcoms, my brain just can't process canned laughs anymore, to the point where it legitimately pisses me off. even if there's a joke i actually find funny, as soon as the laughs and claps come in, my smile vanishes.
considering the birthyear-ranges for Millenials and Gen-Z, i am in theory an "old zoomer". i did witness the birth of YouTube on my WindowsXP-PC, and later TikTok on a smartphone, maybe that mix of experience causes such weird mismatches :D
I'm boomer aged and I can't stand a laugh track. If you have to signal me it's time to laugh, it's not funny. I just thought it was a spectrum thing.
I've seen a few videos on YouTube where someone has taken an old sitcom and removed the laugh track, and they are universally terrible.
Every year or so we hear about new studies that double or halve the age of the universe.
Until we get radically new data, I'll consider the universe ageless. This is the most elegant solution anyway.
> Every year or so we hear about new studies that double or halve the age of the universe.
Not any reputable ones. The consensus on the estimated age of the universe has shifted only slightly in the last several decades.
There's no way that it hasn't existed for infinity, for the value where universe = literally everything. It can't come from nothing, so it has always existed. I am obviously not aware of the formal definition of universe, considering there are theories of our universe being one of many bubbling in the cosmic foam.
> There's no way that it hasn't existed for infinity
I'm not disagreeing, but this is _slightly_ shifting the goal posts. When scientists in this field talk about the 'age of the universe', it's nearly always the short form of 'the time distance from now back to the big bang, beyond which there is no way to see beyond'.
> It can't come from nothing
That depends on your definition of 'nothing', which Krauss spends a lot of time communicating to the public :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
Whereas I really like the idea that infinities cannot exist, so for any definition of the universe, it must have had a start somewhere/when.
Why can't they exist? That's an arbitrary and unnecessary constraint.
How could it start from absolutely nothing?
This never actually happens.
Since Hubble launched there's been a near complete consensus on the bounds that were radically reduced down from before. Perhaps you were born in the seventies or earlier? Well before CMB studies and the Hubble telescope launched.
There's just been a ton of science trying to reconcile the difference in the upper and lower bounds that are far closer than they were before. But it's a few billion years, not doubling or halving.
It also depends what one name universe. That universe is ageless is not fundamentally incompatible with a BigBang like event occurring at some point in it.
We also hear that time is an illusion, which renders the whole debate moot anyway.
We know nothing about the true nature of consciousness, and we can't describe time except through our own subjective experience of it. Spacetime might not even be the fundamental layer of the universe, it's just what we all collectively experience through consciousness. So until we figure out what we are, these questions will remain unanswered.
"What we are" and "how consciousness emerges and what it implies about itself and its relation to everything else" are two distinct considerations which only partially overlap.
For the second part, it's completely fine to dismiss the first question as irrelevant as "what is 'it' in 'it rains '". That is, language artifact are not evidence of ontological correspondance in actual things happening. So, "we", "being", and "me" can be regarded as illusions. The illusion itself actually happen, but it's more straight forward interpretion is generally misguiding.
The first approach on the other hand can lead to dismiss consciousness as relevant tool to reach some absolute substance which is postulated as ultimate reality. That is, there is some "being", and "I" and "we", just as there are actual ideal spheres in existence in a platonic sense.
Both don't give much credits to the most trivial intuitive interpretation of phenomena, but they kind of point to very different directions.
In a sense, time is just different fractions of counting the number of times a planet of monkeys goes around the sun. The monkeys then apply this limited concept of time to the entire universe. But then in the grand scheme of things, everything that is now was nothing at one point and presumably will also be nothing again, then the only evidence of time are the monkeys who tried to keep count of how many times they orbited a star. When everything returns to nothingness, time will have been an illusion.
We don't know if anything ever was and will return to nothingness and even if nothingness is a valid concept. We don't know if cosmos as a whole don't experiment a form of consciousness, which don't need to be anthropomorphized to be clear.
And illusion implies that something exits, where the illusion can be casted and experimented.
Isn't time related to the distance between objects eg. space. So if the distance is 0, time does not exist
Lunchtime doubly so"
--Douglas Adams
Time is an illusion but not causality
Perception rather than illusion.
Every year or so we hear that super intelligence is around the corner and is also impossible, so I'll ignore LLMs entirely until there's new information.
"Scientists have determined there may be as many as..."
pauses to look at mafioso behind him
"...24 stars in the cosmos."
Oh poor universe. As if she wasn't old enough already :)
Funny how modern science is all about belief
But those hair implants...
Another hit to having answer for the fermi paradox, a universe this quiet is something to marvel at
Seeing as the universe existed before time existed, it would seem that the universe is infinitely old.
What does "old" mean before time exists?
Hence the stub in of infinity
Or zero old
A time of 100 plus 0 is 100. A time of 100 plus infinity is infinity. Only one value changes the outcome, so that it represents something as existing.
Big Bong