Timeline for Is the observable region of the universe within the event horizon of a super-massive black hole?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2021 at 18:28 | comment | added | Edouard | Since astronomers tend, on a physics site, to be respected more than monks, I'd like to point out that "Olbers'" Paradox was first formulated by Kepler, as described by the late physicist John Barrow (who worked "just down the hall from Stephen Hawking"). | |
| Oct 21, 2019 at 15:53 | comment | added | alamar | "About 10^80 particles" are exactly as good at creating black hole as a single large singularity! There is no relation whatsoever between singularity and black hole horizon - non-singular matter can form an event horizon, and singularity can (theoretically) be naked. | |
| Jul 25, 2016 at 14:39 | comment | added | Devsman | +1 awesome answer, but allow me to comment on your appeal to authority. If an idea means calling people who are presumably much smarter than you are wrong, this doesn't mean your idea is necessarily wrong. However, it does mean you should look over it very carefully. :) | |
| Nov 24, 2015 at 11:01 | comment | added | Jus12 | I'm not able to see how the answer rules out the possibility that we are inside the event horizon of a blackhole that is extremely massive (with event horizon close to a trillion trillion light years, ignoring for the moment the number of Fermions needed for that). Wouldn't space be almost flat and the curvature measurements will be in line with what we observe? | |
| Mar 3, 2014 at 23:30 | comment | added | Selene Routley | "..... lends whole new meaning to the term negligible" $\text{LOL}^{\aleph_0}$. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 18:03 | comment | added | Andrew | Lots of helpful references in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe, including an estimate of 10^80 atoms, not particles. My bad... so we're a lot closer than I originally let on, but it's still not a credible contender as an alternative cosmological theory. | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 16:47 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 28, 2011 at 16:57 | comment | added | Larry OBrien | Thanks for the clarification. My feeling with New Scientist is that they're willing to entertain speculation, but not absurdities. For some reason, I'm pleased that "Universe in a black hole" is conceivable. | |
| Jul 28, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | Andrew | Outrageousness is in the eye of the beholder. Also, New Scientist specializes in reporting on what is probably best described as the "brainstorming" of the scientific community, hunting out the "maybes," "initial results suggest," "not inconsistent with..." type articles that make for splashy headlines, not definitive results in mature subfields, so take anything there with a grain of salt. | |
| Jul 28, 2011 at 3:58 | comment | added | Larry OBrien | Is it truly outrageous to speculate that "the Universe is inside a black hole"? Because it seems common enough in the popular science press. For instance, New Scientist newscientist.com/article/… starts "WE COULD be living inside a black hole." | |
| Jul 27, 2011 at 18:37 | history | answered | Andrew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |