Why would we think otherwise considering that everything in the universe seems to rotate from galactic clusters to galaxies to black holes to stars to planets to the brains of physicists trying to reconcile relativity and quantum?
Does the math actually work out? If so, is there a known constant for the angular momentum of the universe that would explain what we’re seeing?
Rotation is meaningless without an external reference frame to compare against. Consider that right now the planet (and your body) is rotating at ~1000km/h but to us it feels stationary. We only know the planet rotates because we observe effects like the sun,moon,stars rotate around us (which ancient peoples misunderstood as earth-centerism thinking everything rotates around us)
Rotation mathematically requires a center axis to rotate around. There is no true center to our observable universe, only subjective perspective reference frames. wherever you are is the center from your perspective. So there is no definitive geometric center axis of our universe to rotate around.
No it’s not. You can tell you’re rotating using internal sensors alone, unlike linear velocity. Just because the magnitude of the earth’s rotation is small compared to our biological sense of rotation doesn’t mean rotation is relative the same way linear motion is. You’re drawing a false connection between the fact that you can’t tell if you’re accelerating under gravity or not to rotation, which is fundamentally different. Also you don’t rotate with units of linear velocity, but with units of angular velocity. The earth rotates at about 0.0042 deg/s, which is very slow. You rotate many orders of magnitude faster than that rolling over in bed or turning your head.
The universe having a nonzero total angular momentum does indeed imply an axis of rotation, but our theories don’t explicitly rule that out. Given the size of the universe, the rate of rotation would be inconceivably small compared to the earth, and extremely difficult to measure. Most of my problem with your statements on this point is you’re assuming current hypotheses to be confirmed fact set in stone, which is not true.
2 does not preclude the observable universe being but a fraction of the entire universe, in which there is a centre about which everything else rotates, or at least, a hitherto unimagined mass on a truly universal scale that chunks of universe the size of our “observable” orbit.
I’m telling you. I’ve always been telling you. We are living in a black hole. It explains elegantly a lot. It also raises absurd questions and possibilities, and nibbles at the nature of causality itself, but so help me god, we are living in a black hole.
You are close I think! though its not quite that simple IMO. . According to penrose spacetime diagrams the roles of space and time get reversed in a black hole which causes all sorts of wierdness from an interior perspective. Just like the universe has no center, it also has no single singularity pulling everything in unlike a black hole. The universe contains many singularities, a black hole contains one singularity that might connect to many universes depending on how much you buy into the complete penrose diagrams.
Now heres where it gets interesting. Our observable universe has a hard limit boundary known as the cosmological horizon due to finite speed of light and finite universe lifespan. Its impossible to ever know whats beyond this horizon boundary. similarly,black hole event horizons share this property of not being able to know about the future state of objects that fall inside. A cosmologist would say they are different phenomenon but from an information-theoretic perspective these are fundamentally indistinguishable Riemann manifolds that share a very unique property.
They are geometric physically realized instances of uncomputability which is a direct analog of godelian incompleteness and turing undecidability within the universes computational phase space. The universe is a finite computational system with finite state system representation capacity of about 10^122 microstates according to beckenstein bounds and Planck constant. If an area of spacetime exceeds this amount of potential microstates to represent it gets quarantined in a black hole singularity so the whole system doesnt freeze up trying to compute the uncomputable.
The problem is that the universe can’t just throw away all that energy and information due to conservation laws, instead it utilizes something called ‘holographic principle’ to safely conserve information even if it cant compute with it. Information isn’t lost when a thing enters a black hole instead it gets encoded into the topological event horizon boundary itself. in a sense the information is ‘pulled’ into a higher fractal dimension for efficient encoding. Over time the universe slowly works on safely bleeding out all that energy through hawking radiation.
So say you buy into this logic, assume that the cosmological horizon isn’t just some observational limit artifact but an actual topological Riemann manifold made of the same ‘stuff’ sharing properties with an event horizon, like an inverted black hole where the universe is a kind of anti-singularity which distributes matter everywhere dense as it expands instead of concentrating matter into a single point. what could that mean?
So this holographic principle thing is all about how information in high dimensional topological spaces can be projected down into lower dimensional space. This concept is insanely powerful and is at the forefront of advanced computer modeling of high dimensional spaces. For example, neural networks organize information in high dimensional spaces called activation atlases that have billions and trillions of ‘feature dimensions’ each representing a kind of relation between two unique states of information.
So, what if our physical universe is a lower dimensional holographic projection of the cosmological horizon manifold? What if the unknowable cosmological horizon bubble surrounding our universe is the universes fundimental substrate in its native high dimensional space and our 3D+1T universe perspective is a projection?
Its impossible to ever know whats beyond this horizon boundary. similarly,black hole event horizons share this property of not being able to know about the future state of objects that fall inside.
Similarly. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I mean, we can see a resolution of within 300000 years of the creation of the Universe, or something like that. That too, becomes a sort of an event horizon. I’m not saying this is the case, but it kind of rhymes if we were within some sort of bubble on “the other side” of a supernova resulting in a black hole. I mean, even by our own physics, matter is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. So, it could be that, in my mind, the Big Bang was an “inverted supernova/black hole” event. I think someone called it a “white hole”. But again, I’m just completely speculating, but it’s super interesting to me as someone who just has a passion for learning and understanding and trying to figure out things myself based on the tremendous works of all the giants upon whose shoulders I stand and squint at the horizon!
Edit:
A cosmologist would say they are different phenomenon but from an information-theoretic perspective these are fundamentally indistinguishable Riemann manifolds that share a very unique property.
I don’t know exactly what you just said, but I understood PERFECTLY what you just said.
Edit{2}:
They are geometric physically realized instances of uncomputability which is a direct analog of godelian incompleteness and turing undecidability within the universes computational phase space.
I am amazed that I understand what you are saying.
Edit{3}:
The universe is a finite computational system with finite state system representation capacity of about 10^122 microstates according to beckenstein bounds and Planck constant. If an area of spacetime exceeds this amount of potential microstates to represent it gets quarantined in a black hole singularity so the whole system doesnt freeze up trying to compute the uncomputable.
Did you write this, genuinely? It is pure poetry such that even Samurai would go “hhhOooOOooo!”.
And it is so interesting, because, what you are talking about sounds a lot like computational constraints of the medium performing the computation. We know there are limits in the Universe. There is a hard limit on the types of information we can and cannot reach. Only adds fuel to the fire for hypotheses such as the holographic Universe, or simulation theory. But for me, personally, I believe that at some point our own language breaks down because it isn’t quite adapted to dealing with these types of questions, as is again in some sense reminiscent of both Godel and quantum mechanics, if you would allow the stretch. It is undeterminability that is the key, the “event horizon” of knowledge as it were.
You are absolutely right, and it is obviously not that simple, I have some tentative leads which, based on recent discoveries such as just this apparent “axle” of the Universe, could actually mean something significant. I am aware the hypothesis has been proposed previously, I believe in the 80’s, and it was not taken seriously, and as I read the news about this new discovery, to me it struck me as a smoking gun moment- if there is an axle or spin to the Universe itself, that would be a sort of tell tale sign of a black hole seen from a certain perspective (outside of the Universe, which poses a problem, but not really, because we know about dimensions, so it could in my mind hypothetically itself be explained even if I am not sure what that would look like if you catch my drift).
To me, as a layman, and just fanatic lover of space (and time), I just pareidolia my way into hypotheses, and more often than not there’s some reason to it. So that’s my ground. I wrote quite a bit about it and did some research into various theories surrounding it, and there has been a lot of renewed interest in this Black Hole hypothesis ever since this discovery was made because apparently I was not alone in drawing the same possible conclusions.
Thank you so much for your detailed answer, I will go through it now and read what you wrote and what you posted, to get a better understanding, because obviously I am nowhere near qualified to make such bold statements as I have done. But did anyway.
Two questions:
Rotation is meaningless without an external reference frame to compare against. Consider that right now the planet (and your body) is rotating at ~1000km/h but to us it feels stationary. We only know the planet rotates because we observe effects like the sun,moon,stars rotate around us (which ancient peoples misunderstood as earth-centerism thinking everything rotates around us)
Rotation mathematically requires a center axis to rotate around. There is no true center to our observable universe, only subjective perspective reference frames. wherever you are is the center from your perspective. So there is no definitive geometric center axis of our universe to rotate around.
No it’s not. You can tell you’re rotating using internal sensors alone, unlike linear velocity. Just because the magnitude of the earth’s rotation is small compared to our biological sense of rotation doesn’t mean rotation is relative the same way linear motion is. You’re drawing a false connection between the fact that you can’t tell if you’re accelerating under gravity or not to rotation, which is fundamentally different. Also you don’t rotate with units of linear velocity, but with units of angular velocity. The earth rotates at about 0.0042 deg/s, which is very slow. You rotate many orders of magnitude faster than that rolling over in bed or turning your head.
The universe having a nonzero total angular momentum does indeed imply an axis of rotation, but our theories don’t explicitly rule that out. Given the size of the universe, the rate of rotation would be inconceivably small compared to the earth, and extremely difficult to measure. Most of my problem with your statements on this point is you’re assuming current hypotheses to be confirmed fact set in stone, which is not true.
2 does not preclude the observable universe being but a fraction of the entire universe, in which there is a centre about which everything else rotates, or at least, a hitherto unimagined mass on a truly universal scale that chunks of universe the size of our “observable” orbit.
I’m telling you. I’ve always been telling you. We are living in a black hole. It explains elegantly a lot. It also raises absurd questions and possibilities, and nibbles at the nature of causality itself, but so help me god, we are living in a black hole.
You are close I think! though its not quite that simple IMO. . According to penrose spacetime diagrams the roles of space and time get reversed in a black hole which causes all sorts of wierdness from an interior perspective. Just like the universe has no center, it also has no single singularity pulling everything in unlike a black hole. The universe contains many singularities, a black hole contains one singularity that might connect to many universes depending on how much you buy into the complete penrose diagrams.
Now heres where it gets interesting. Our observable universe has a hard limit boundary known as the cosmological horizon due to finite speed of light and finite universe lifespan. Its impossible to ever know whats beyond this horizon boundary. similarly,black hole event horizons share this property of not being able to know about the future state of objects that fall inside. A cosmologist would say they are different phenomenon but from an information-theoretic perspective these are fundamentally indistinguishable Riemann manifolds that share a very unique property.
They are geometric physically realized instances of uncomputability which is a direct analog of godelian incompleteness and turing undecidability within the universes computational phase space. The universe is a finite computational system with finite state system representation capacity of about 10^122 microstates according to beckenstein bounds and Planck constant. If an area of spacetime exceeds this amount of potential microstates to represent it gets quarantined in a black hole singularity so the whole system doesnt freeze up trying to compute the uncomputable.
The problem is that the universe can’t just throw away all that energy and information due to conservation laws, instead it utilizes something called ‘holographic principle’ to safely conserve information even if it cant compute with it. Information isn’t lost when a thing enters a black hole instead it gets encoded into the topological event horizon boundary itself. in a sense the information is ‘pulled’ into a higher fractal dimension for efficient encoding. Over time the universe slowly works on safely bleeding out all that energy through hawking radiation.
So say you buy into this logic, assume that the cosmological horizon isn’t just some observational limit artifact but an actual topological Riemann manifold made of the same ‘stuff’ sharing properties with an event horizon, like an inverted black hole where the universe is a kind of anti-singularity which distributes matter everywhere dense as it expands instead of concentrating matter into a single point. what could that mean?
So this holographic principle thing is all about how information in high dimensional topological spaces can be projected down into lower dimensional space. This concept is insanely powerful and is at the forefront of advanced computer modeling of high dimensional spaces. For example, neural networks organize information in high dimensional spaces called activation atlases that have billions and trillions of ‘feature dimensions’ each representing a kind of relation between two unique states of information.
So, what if our physical universe is a lower dimensional holographic projection of the cosmological horizon manifold? What if the unknowable cosmological horizon bubble surrounding our universe is the universes fundimental substrate in its native high dimensional space and our 3D+1T universe perspective is a projection?
Similarly. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I mean, we can see a resolution of within 300000 years of the creation of the Universe, or something like that. That too, becomes a sort of an event horizon. I’m not saying this is the case, but it kind of rhymes if we were within some sort of bubble on “the other side” of a supernova resulting in a black hole. I mean, even by our own physics, matter is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. So, it could be that, in my mind, the Big Bang was an “inverted supernova/black hole” event. I think someone called it a “white hole”. But again, I’m just completely speculating, but it’s super interesting to me as someone who just has a passion for learning and understanding and trying to figure out things myself based on the tremendous works of all the giants upon whose shoulders I stand and squint at the horizon!
Edit:
I don’t know exactly what you just said, but I understood PERFECTLY what you just said.
Edit{2}:
I am amazed that I understand what you are saying.
Edit{3}:
Did you write this, genuinely? It is pure poetry such that even Samurai would go “hhhOooOOooo!”.
And it is so interesting, because, what you are talking about sounds a lot like computational constraints of the medium performing the computation. We know there are limits in the Universe. There is a hard limit on the types of information we can and cannot reach. Only adds fuel to the fire for hypotheses such as the holographic Universe, or simulation theory. But for me, personally, I believe that at some point our own language breaks down because it isn’t quite adapted to dealing with these types of questions, as is again in some sense reminiscent of both Godel and quantum mechanics, if you would allow the stretch. It is undeterminability that is the key, the “event horizon” of knowledge as it were.
You are absolutely right, and it is obviously not that simple, I have some tentative leads which, based on recent discoveries such as just this apparent “axle” of the Universe, could actually mean something significant. I am aware the hypothesis has been proposed previously, I believe in the 80’s, and it was not taken seriously, and as I read the news about this new discovery, to me it struck me as a smoking gun moment- if there is an axle or spin to the Universe itself, that would be a sort of tell tale sign of a black hole seen from a certain perspective (outside of the Universe, which poses a problem, but not really, because we know about dimensions, so it could in my mind hypothetically itself be explained even if I am not sure what that would look like if you catch my drift).
To me, as a layman, and just fanatic lover of space (and time), I just pareidolia my way into hypotheses, and more often than not there’s some reason to it. So that’s my ground. I wrote quite a bit about it and did some research into various theories surrounding it, and there has been a lot of renewed interest in this Black Hole hypothesis ever since this discovery was made because apparently I was not alone in drawing the same possible conclusions.
Thank you so much for your detailed answer, I will go through it now and read what you wrote and what you posted, to get a better understanding, because obviously I am nowhere near qualified to make such bold statements as I have done. But did anyway.
<3
I wish I had geohotz email to give you both. He was trying to find a way to hack the universe for physics clues for a long time.
“Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a looong time…”
I recommend you check out the YouTube channel PBS Space Time. They have some excellent videos explaining the holographic principle and all the background knowledge needed to understand it.
Seen all of’em, friend! :)