Speaker 1: Imagine stepping back from everything you know. I mean everything,
every city, every mountain, every single star you've ever seen,
the whole thing, the whole thing. Now, imagine taking all
of cosmic history, that entire thirteen point seven billion years
we've so carefully mapped out, and just shrinking it all down,
reducing every particle, every photon down to a single, tiny,
insignificant point. What if that point, our entire universe is
just a sub atomic particle in a system that we
can't even begin to grasp.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate exercise in humility, isn't it the idea
that our vast, mysterious cosmos, the very thing we think
of as infinity, might actually be contained inside something else,
something even bigger, an unimaginable, larger structure. It's a concept
that basically demands we throw out our most fundamental assumptions
about well about reality itself.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the deep dive Today. We're diving into
a frontier of theoretical physics that, and I'm not exaggerating here,
genuinely challenges the most basic principles of modern cosmology. We
are exploring the stunning, pretty radical possibility that our entire
observable universe is encapsulated within an unimaginably gigantic black hole.
Speaker 2: And this isn't just you know, some thought experiment. This
is a hypothesis that's actually gaining traction because of some
very curious, very hard to explain astronomical observations.
Speaker 1: Right, But we have to tackle the central contradiction right away.
Speaker 2: We have to on one hand, every measurement we have,
from the red shift of distant galaxies to cosmic microwave background,
it all defines our universe.
Speaker 1: By expansion, everything is moving away from.
Speaker 2: Everything else exactly, everything is charging outward. Space itself is stretching.
But a black hole, by its very definition, is all
about relentless crushing compression gravity pulling everything inward to a
single point.
Speaker 1: So that's the tension. How can something be expanding at
these incredible speeds while also being held captive inside a
system defined by inescapable inward gravitational collapse.
Speaker 2: For this to be true, these two completely opposing forces
expansion and containment, have to somehow coexist, And we're going.
Speaker 1: To dive into the clues that suggests this impossible harmony
might actually be our reality.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's start with the official story the Standard.
Speaker 1: Model, right the Big Bang. It's the clinerstone of all
of cosmology. It's the model that governs everything from how
atoms formed to the ultimate fate of reality.
Speaker 2: And the Standard Model requires us to go back thirteen
point seven billion years, when all matter, all energy, space
and time, we're all compressed into this infinitely small, infinitely
hot point the singularity, the singularity, which is a state
of infinite density that right off the bat breaks all
the known laws.
Speaker 1: Of physics, and then suddenly came the Bang, or more accurately,
this cataclysmic process of expansion. I think people hear explosion
and get the wrong idea.
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely, an explosion sends stuff flying through space that's
already there.
Speaker 1: Okay. The Big Bang, and especially that first moment called
cosm inflation, was the expansion of space time itself. In
a tiny, tiny fraction of a second, the universe inflated
faster than the speed of light.
Speaker 2: And that's not matter moving, that's the ruler of space
itself stretching out exactly.
Speaker 1: It's why the universe seems so uniformly flat and homogeneous
to us today.
Speaker 2: The scale of that is just it's impossible to visualize.
We're talking about the volume of the universe increasing by
a factor of ten to the seventy eighth power in
a sliver of a second.
Speaker 1: It's just short circuits your brain trying to imagine it.
Speaker 2: It does. My go to analogy is it's not like
blowing up a balloon where air goes into it. It's
like having lines drawn on the balloon, and then you
stretch the rubber itself. The lines just get further apart.
Speaker 1: That's a much better way to think about it. Yeah,
and the Big Bang relies very heavily on something we
have to talk about, the cosmological principle. It's sort of
the non negotiable assumption that lets us do cosmology in
the first place.
Speaker 2: Okay, so define that for us again, because this is
the specific idea that the black hole hypothesis just just shatters.
The principle basically states that on very large scales, the
universe is both isotropic and homogenous.
Speaker 1: Okay, what do those mean.
Speaker 2: Isotropic means it looks the same in all directions from
any point. There's no up or down in the cosmos.
Homogeneous means it looks the same everywhere no matter where
you go. The density and distribution of galaxies are roughly uniform.
Speaker 1: So if the universe is truly uniform, the matter should
be spread out like a well mixed soup. And more
importantly for today, things like the spin of galaxies should
be totally random.
Speaker 2: Completely random. You should see just as many galaxies spinning
clockwise as you do counterclockwise, a perfect fifty to fifty.
Speaker 1: Split, because the initial chaos of the bang should lead
to random orientations.
Speaker 2: Exactly. But here's the fundamental clash. If we are contained
within a black hole, a structure defined by gravity, rotation,
and compression, that cosmological principle is immediately violated.
Speaker 1: Because a black hole is the opposite of uniform. It's
a single central eye structure, it has a boundary the
event horizon center, and probably a dominant rotation.
Speaker 2: Precisely, black holes compress things inward. The gravity is relentless.
So if we accept that we're contained, we have to
challenge this idea of uniform expansion, and the challenge is huge.
How can this rapid, faster than light expansion happen against
the crushing gravity of the container.
Speaker 1: We're looking for a loophole, a way for expansion to
be possible, maybe even caused by the physics of the
black hole we're supposedly in.
Speaker 2: And the exciting part is that this isn't just the
thought experiment. It's being driven by actual astronomical observations that
are starting to show these little cracks in the idea
of uniformity.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's get into that. Let's talk about the specific
observation that really shook things up recently. It came from
a pretty fascinating science paper using the James Webs based
telescope the GWST right.
Speaker 2: A researcher used its deep field capabilities to zero in
on a huge patch of the sky and they were
looking specifically at the rotational dynamics of spiral galaxies, the
beautiful cosmic pinwheels the very same and if the universe
were perfectly uniform, like the cosmological principles says it should be,
the spins of these galaxies should be completely random. But
that's not what they found, not even close. They found
a definitive, statistically significant bias. In that huge region. They
observed roughly two thirds of the spiral galaxies appeared to
be rotating clockwise and the other third counterclockwise.
Speaker 1: Wait a two to one preference for clockwise rotation. That is,
that's not random at all, not in the slightest. That
means there's a preferred directionality, a cosmic axis or spin
that's influencing matter across these immense distances. That observation alone,
if it holds up, fundamentally challenges the idea that the
universe is the same everywhere.
Speaker 2: It creates what physicists sometimes call an access of evil problem.
It's a kind of a dramatic term for any finding
that suggests the universe has a preferred.
Speaker 1: Direction, the axis of evil.
Speaker 2: I like that, and if it is real, it implies
that some massive external structure as imposing its own rotation,
its own spin, onto the stuff inside it.
Speaker 1: Here's the connection. What massive singular structures are defined by
immense gravity and crucially rotation.
Speaker 2: Black holes. A large rotating black hole has this property
called frame dragging, the lens thiring effect.
Speaker 1: All right, It literally drags space time around of it.
Speaker 2: It does. And while we usually think of that effect
as being really strong close to the event horizon, if
our container is a black hole of stupendous scale, its
sheer mass and rotation could introduce this this subtle long
range alignment effect on the galaxies inside.
Speaker 1: It is like we're inside a cosmic washing machine, and
all the clothes the galaxies are eventually going to start
swirling in the same direction.
Speaker 2: That's a great analogy for it.
Speaker 1: Okay, but let me play skeptic for a second. The
paper itself notes that this observation hasn't been confirmed yet
by larger surveys. Why is that so hard to do?
Why can't we just point more telescopes in check?
Speaker 2: It's a vital question. Confirmation is tricky for a couple
of reasons. First, there's observational bias. When you're looking at
galaxies billions of light years away, you have to account
for how they're tilted relative to you. Dust getting in
the way, lots of things.
Speaker 1: So it's a messy signal to clean up.
Speaker 2: Very messy. And second, the cosmological principle is a really
deeply ingrained assumption. Scientists often design surveys that kind of
average out these anomalies by default because they expect them
to disappear with a large enough sample size.
Speaker 1: So we need new surveys that are specifically designed to
look for this asymmetry instead of just assuming it away precisely.
Speaker 2: So until then, this anomaly. Is this crucial, tantalizing piece
of evidence, and it leads us to the second truly
mind bending clue, the mathematical alignment known as the radius coincidence.
Speaker 1: I still find this one staggering. Explain how this mathematical
coincidence works?
Speaker 2: Okay, So we use the short shelled radius formula to
calculate the size of a black hole's event horizon. Is
actually quite simple. The radius is directly proportional to the mass.
Speaker 1: More mass, bigger event horizon exactly.
Speaker 2: So, to figure out the size of the black hole
that could contain our universe, we take the total estimated
mass and energy of the observable universe everything we can see,
detect or measure, and we plug that number into the formula.
Speaker 1: And what is it spit up?
Speaker 2: It spits out a radius that is mathematically incredibly close
to the actual measured size of our observable universe.
Speaker 1: How close is incredibly close?
Speaker 2: A calculated radius matches the observable size to within about
ten to fifteen percent. In cosmology, that is an unnervingly
small discrepancy.
Speaker 1: Hold on, let me pause there. When I think about
cosmic math, the uncertainty margins can be huge. We argue
over the hubble constant dark energy measurements. Sometimes the air bars.
Speaker 2: Are massive, they can be yes.
Speaker 1: But here you're telling me that a theoretical calculation for
a black hole containing all of our universe's mass matches
the actual distance to the edge of what we can
see within fifteen percent.
Speaker 2: That's why it's such an aha moment for this theory.
It's really hard to dismiss a coincidence when you're dealing
with numbers of this magnitude.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean for the age of our universe.
We've always been taught that the edge is just defined
by how far light has had time to travel to
us since the Big Bang.
Speaker 2: Right about forty six billion light years away when you
account for expansion. But if this mathematical alignment is a
physical reality, then the edge of our observable universe isn't
just a time limit.
Speaker 1: It's the event horizon.
Speaker 2: It's the event horizon of the massive black hole we
are inside.
Speaker 1: That's why we can't see beyond it. The event horizon
is the ultimate firewall, the boundary where nothing, not even light,
can escape Exactly.
Speaker 2: The universe looks finite to us because we're locked inside
its boundary. It's a clean, elegant explanation for why our
cosmic vision has a hard stop. We aren't just looking
out into space. We're looking right up to the point
of no return of our cosmic prison.
Speaker 1: Okay, that sounds existentially terrifying, but you said earlier that
our day to day lives wouldn't change. We don't feel
like we're being crushed or spaghettified. Why not.
Speaker 2: It all comes down to scale. The tidal forces, the
things that stretch you apart. They only become destructive when
there's a huge difference in gravity over a small.
Speaker 1: Distance, like near a small stellar mass black hole.
Speaker 2: Right, It's gravity changes dramatically over just a few meters,
so it would tear you apart. But if the black
hole containing us is stupendously large, the radius of curvature
is immense.
Speaker 1: So the gravitational field is almost uniform over say the
size of our.
Speaker 2: Solar system, the difference in the pole on your head
versus your feet would be so small it would be
completely negligible. We're safe because our container is just too
big for us to feel the squeeze.
Speaker 1: So if this is true, the black hole we're in
isn't just big. It's got to be a whole new
class of object.
Speaker 2: It does. We need to talk about the scale required.
The black hole containing our universe would have to be
what theoretical physicists have called, quite bluntly, a stupid hendously
large black hole. A slab, A slab.
Speaker 1: I love it. It's a fitting name, it is. Let's
really appreciate the scale here by doing a quick tour
of black hole sizes, just to show how far off
the charts this thing would be. Let's start small.
Speaker 2: Okay, we can start with primordial black holes. These are
hypothetical objects formed in the first few moments after the
Big Bang from collapsing pockets of super dense plasma. No
bigger they They could range from the mass of an
asteroid to maybe tens of thousands of times the mass
of the Sun. They're fascinating, but obviously way too small
to hold the universe.
Speaker 1: Okay, next up the common ones, stellar mass black holes.
These form when a single massive star collapses.
Speaker 2: And the key here is always density. If you took
our entire planet Earth and somehow compressed it down into.
Speaker 1: A black hole, how big would be.
Speaker 2: Its Schwitz Child radius would be about one centimeter. The
size of.
Speaker 1: A marble one centimeter. When I try to picture the
entire mass of the Earth, the oceans, the mountains, the
molten core all crush into a marble. My brain just
it starts to fizz. The density is incomprehensible.
Speaker 2: And if that one centimeter object holds all of Earth,
a stellar black hole is clearly not going to hold
the universe.
Speaker 1: Laughably too small, okay.
Speaker 2: Moving up next are the intermediate mass black holes or imbhs,
the elusive middle children, ranging from one hundred to maybe
a million solar masses, still just mediocre by cosmic standards, which.
Speaker 1: Brings us to the giants. We actually see super massive
black holes. The SMBH is at the center of nearly
every galaxy.
Speaker 2: Right, weighing in at millions or even billions of times
the mass of our Sun. A lot of people hear
this theory and they immediately think, oh, so we're inside
one of those.
Speaker 1: But even they aren't big enough.
Speaker 2: Not even close. Let's take one of the biggest ones
we've ever measured, something truly terrifying, maybe ten billion times
the mass of our sun. Okay, if you calculate the
size of its event horizon, its diameter is only about
two hundred astronomical units across two hundred AUG.
Speaker 1: For context, that's roughly the diameter of our soul system,
including the Orc Cloud. It's enormous, but it's still just
our little stellar neighborhood exactly.
Speaker 2: It's astronomically large, but it's not cosmologically large. The relationship
between mass and radius is linear, so to get a
radius of forty six billion light years, you need a
correspondingly gigantic increase in mass.
Speaker 1: So we have to go way beyond the billions of
solar masses of an SMBH. We need a stell ab
whose mass is precisely the mass of the entire observable universe.
That's the only thing that works for the radius coincidence.
Speaker 2: And that raises another huge question. Where would something like
that even come from. We think SMBHs grow by eating
gas and stars or merging with other black holes, but
a slab am that would have to have been born
in an even older, even more massive parent universe.
Speaker 1: It feels like every answer we find just opens up
three more, even bigger questions.
Speaker 2: That's cosmology for you.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's tackle the biggest conceptual headache again, expansion
versus compression. If our universe is inside a cell, abb
how does the Big Bang, the expansion even happen.
Speaker 2: We have to redefine what the big Bang is. Instead
of the absolute beginning of everything, it becomes a sub event.
Speaker 1: A chapter, and a bigger story exactly.
Speaker 2: The big Bang model still works perfectly to describe the
physics inside our space time, the rapid expansion, the cooling,
the formation of elements. But the event that create our
singularity happened outside.
Speaker 1: So it's the moment a black hole and apparent universe collapsed,
and that singularity somehow birth the whole new, sealed off
bubble of space time, and that bubble is us.
Speaker 2: This is a concept in quantum gravity called ficcun universes
or baby universes. The idea is that when matter collapses
into a singularity, the extreme conditions could effectively create a new,
separate volume of space. Our big Bang is just the
moment that new singularity began its own rapid inflationary expansion.
Speaker 1: So we are expanding, but only within the sealed off
boundaries of our container. The container itself is an exit.
It's just doing what black holes do in the parent universe.
Speaker 2: Right it connects our universe to this potentially infinite chain
of creation where black holes are basically the portals for
new space times. But this idea immediately competes with other
alternative theories to the standard Big.
Speaker 1: Bang, like the Big Bounce.
Speaker 2: Like the Big Bounce, which is a really popular one,
it suggests that our universe didn't start from nothing, but
that it's cyclical.
Speaker 1: Our current expansion is just the rebound from the collapse
of a previous universe.
Speaker 2: Yes, so the universe could be infinitely old, just expanding
and contracting, rebooting itself over and over. It's an elegant
way to get rid of that pesky beginning problem.
Speaker 1: But the Big Bounce runs into huge trouble if we're
inside a black hole.
Speaker 2: Huge trouble because a black hole acts like a giant
pit of quicksand not a trampoline. It's not going to
bounce back, not easily. The analogy is powerful because it
captures the immense gravitational resistance. A black hole's gravity is
an inward pulling force. The Big Bounce needs some kind
of immense, organized out what word rebound force to overcome
the final collapse.
Speaker 1: And if that collapse happened inside a cess lab its
own gravity is now fighting against the gravity of the
entire container.
Speaker 2: It's a double ammy. The big bounced theories often rely
on some kind of quantum mechanical repulsive force that only
kicks in at extreme densities. For that to work inside
a cess lab, that quantum force would have to be
strong enough to overcome both the internal gravity and the
external compressive force of the container.
Speaker 1: That's a huge hurdle to clear. It seems like you'd
need some kind of new physics, maybe something about gravity
leaking into other dimensions, to allow that initial inflation to
punch out against the containment pressure you would.
Speaker 2: One idea that gets discussed is the role of negative pressure.
We already know our universe has dark energy, which acts
as a kind of negative pressure to drive.
Speaker 1: Expansion, pushing things apart right.
Speaker 2: So one wild idea is that if the parent universe
is somehow leaking high energy exotic matter across the event
horizon into our universe, that could provide the case continuous
negative pressure we need to keep inflating even while we're contained.
Speaker 1: There's a huge leap of faith assuming physics from outside
our own.
Speaker 2: Reality it is, but it shows the kind of radical
thinking you need to reconcile these two massive observations. We're expanding,
but we might also be contained.
Speaker 1: Okay, so regardless of how we got here, if we
are inside asl lab, that container has to influence our
ultimate fate. So what are the possibilities for the end
of the universe.
Speaker 2: Well, we've got four major cosmological endgame scenarios, and being
inside a black hole makes some of them much more
likely and others well nearly impossible.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the one that feels most natural for
being stuck inside a gravitational prison.
Speaker 2: That would be scenario one, The Big Crunch.
Speaker 1: The Great Collapse. The universe stops expanding, gravity takes over,
and everything comes crashing back together.
Speaker 2: In this scenario, matter starts accelerating inward again, Galaxies collide,
black holes merge, and everything culminates in this violent, insanely
collapse back into a singularity.
Speaker 1: And being inside a cell lab would just accelerate that process, right.
The container's gravity would be amplifying our own universe as
gravity just speeding up the collapse almost certainly.
Speaker 2: Yes. The good news, if you can call it that,
is that the contraction would take billions of years, just
like the expansion did, but the end state is this
single monsterized black hole swallowing everything.
Speaker 1: Okay, now, let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum,
the one that seems like the biggest challenge for this.
Speaker 2: Hypothesis, Scenario two, the big freeze or heat death.
Speaker 1: This is the quiet cold ending.
Speaker 2: Right, driven by maximum entropy, The universe expands forever, energy
spreads out perfectly evenly, the temperature drops toward absolute zero,
and all organized structures dissolve. It just becomes dark, cold
and empty.
Speaker 1: But the problem, as we've said, yeah, is that requires
endless expansion that just seems impossible.
Speaker 2: If you're inside a black hole, it's fundamentally opposed. The
big freeze relies on stuff being able to spread out forever,
But if we're the cess lab's gravity is constantly trying
to pull all that dispersed energy back in. To achieve
heat death, the outward energy of every particle would have
to overcome the total gravitational pull of the entire sl ab,
which seems unlikely, mathematically, very unlikely. So the s Lab
hypothesis pretty much rules out the quiet cold death in
favor of a more violent end.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's get violent scenario three, the Big Rip.
Speaker 2: This is where expansion goes completely off the rails. It's
driven by dark energy, that mysterious force that's already accelerating
the expansion of our universe.
Speaker 1: It's like a negative pressure pushing space time itself apart.
Speaker 2: And in the big Rip scenario, the strength of that
expansionary force keeps increasing over time.
Speaker 1: And eventually it gets so strong it overcomes everything else.
Speaker 2: Everything First it tears galaxies apart, then solar systems, then planets,
and finally the expansion force becomes stronger than the fundamental
forces holding atoms together.
Speaker 1: So it literally rips apart matter itself. Instant vaporization it does.
Speaker 2: And if if the Big Rip is possible inside a
CIS lab, it means that dark energy is strong enough
to completely overwhelm the colossal gravity of the container.
Speaker 1: So dark energy would have to be this intrinsic property
of our space time bubble, powerful enough to just ignore
the external gravity and destroy us from within.
Speaker 2: That's the idea, so it remains a viable, terrifying, and
extremely violent option even from the inside.
Speaker 1: And finally, the weirdest one scenario four, the big slurf.
Speaker 2: Scientifically, this is called vacuum decay. It comes from quantum
field theory, and it suggests that the vacuum of space
we live in might only be a false vacuum, like a.
Speaker 1: Ball resting on a high shelf but not on the floor.
It's stable, but it could fall to a more stable state.
Speaker 2: Perfect analogy and a random quantum event could cause a
small region of space to collapse into a true vacuum,
a state of even lower energy. This creates a bubble
that expands at.
Speaker 1: The speed of light, and it changes the laws of
physics as it goes. If that bubble.
Speaker 2: Hits us, all existing matter and forces would just cease
to exist. But the big SLURP is probably the least
likely scenario if we're in a black hole. Why is
that black holes are the opposite of a vacuum. They're
defined by extreme density. A constant influx of matter and energy.
That high energy, densely packed environment would make an expanding
bubble of true vacuum incredibly.
Speaker 1: Unstable, so the conditions inside the s lab would probably
pop the bubble before it could even get started, or.
Speaker 2: Prevent it from forming in the first place. So, in
a weird way, being inside a black hole might actually
be protecting us from the threat of vacuum decay.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating how our potential prison dictates our potential doom.
It seems to favor the crunch or the rip while
shielding us from the slurp in the freeze.
Speaker 2: It really narrows down the possibilities.
Speaker 1: So we've talked about the container this s lab. But
if our universe is inside a black hole, that black
hole must be part of another bigger parent universe.
Speaker 2: Right, And that parent universe must have its own black holes,
which could contain other universes, and.
Speaker 1: On and on. It's the ultimate infinite cosmic nesting doll.
Speaker 2: This is the concept of a fractal universe, a multiverse
system born directly out of black hole physics. Every time
a massive star collapses in one universe, it could seed
a new separate space time bubble. Our universe, as vast
as it is, might just be a seed for the
next generation.
Speaker 1: The implications for parallel realities are just they're dizzying. If
there are infinite nested universes, each one could have been
born from a different type of singularity, meaning each could
have completely different laws of physics.
Speaker 2: Think about the fundamental constants that rule our reality. The
speed of light, the strength of gravity, planks constant. They
could all be different in an adjacent universe. You could
have a universe where gravity is a repulsive force, not
an attractive one.
Speaker 1: The variation is literally endless, you know. I sometimes try
to ground these huge ideas in a personal way. When
I look up at the stars, I think about how
those photons travel for millions of years just to reach
my eye. To think that all of that staggering depth,
all those galaxies are contained within something else, and that
something else is contained again, it just breaks my sense
of objective reality. It moves from science into philosophy. It
makes me wonder if there's an exact copy of me
in an adjacent universe, having this exact same conversation right now.
Speaker 2: Well, if the nesting is truly infinite, then probability says
there must be. There's a version of you who became
a concert pianist, a version who took that dream job
you passed up in.
Speaker 1: A version who married their high school crush.
Speaker 2: And the sobering flip side is that for every success,
there are millions of versions of us facing failure or
living in a universe where the laws of physics are
so hostile that complex life never even had a chance
to form.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate reflection of cosmic possibility and absurdity all
at once.
Speaker 2: It gives you perspective. It reminds you that the specific
fine tune conditions that led to our existence are probably
just one luck key roll of the dice in an
immense cosmic casino.
Speaker 1: But let's bring it back to the hard evidence, to
that rotational anomaly that started all this. Where does the
hypothesis actually stand right now?
Speaker 2: It remains a crucial but unconfirmed hypothesis. That JWST observation
is incredibly tantalizing, but large scale cosmological surveys have not
yet definitively confirmed that global rotational pattern. The cosmological principle,
though it has some cracks, is still the dominant framework.
Speaker 1: So we're left with these compelling clues, the spin bias
and that uncanny mathematical alignment of the radius, but no
smoking gun just yet.
Speaker 2: That's the nature of this kind of science. We still
have so much to learn, especially about things like dark
energy and what really happens inside of singularity. But the
knowledge regaining whether it proves this s lab theory or
refutes it. It forces us to ask these profound questions.
We're learning how to even search for the impossible.
Speaker 1: This has been an incredibly deep exploration into something truly
mind bending. We've wrestled with that fundamental tension between expansion
and compression, realizing that for us to be inside a
black hole, the Big Bang has to be redefined as
just one event in a much larger story.
Speaker 2: We looked at the key pieces of evidence that jwst
observation of a weird rotational preference in galaxies, and that
uncanny mathematical alignment of our universe's size with the theoretical
event horizon of a stupendously large black hole, the s LAB.
Speaker 1: We toured the cosmic scales and realized that this hypothetical
s LAB would be exponentially larger than any supermassive black
hole we've ever seen, and we mapped out our potential
cosmic endings, finding that being contained likely steers us toward
a violent big crunch or an extreme big rip.
Speaker 2: So if the universe really is a nesting doll and
black holes are the portals creating new space times, what
does that really imply about the limits of scale? If
the event horizon is the absolute limit of what we
can see, what entirely new kind of physics must apply
to the parent universe just beyond our boundary, And that
leaves us with the ultimate question. Is there a true
limit scale a biggest thing and the smallest thing, or
is reality truly fractal and infinite in both directions. That's
the challenge we'll leave you to contemplate.