Articles, Blog

Do Black Holes Create New Universes?

December 27, 2019

Thank you to for supporting
PBS. What if every single black hole that formed
in our universe sparked the big bang of a new universe? Cosmological natural selection proposes exactly
this – but even better, it claims to be able to test the hypothesis. Physicists have been struggling for some time
to figure out why our universe is so comfy. Why, for example, are the fundamental constants
– like the mass of the electron or the strength of the forces – just right for the emergence
of life? Tweak them too much and life, stars, galaxies,
the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. In recent episodes we explored one possible
explanation for this – the anthropic principle and the idea of the multiverse. If there are countless universes with different
fundamental constants, then it’s not surprising that a few exist with the right numbers for
life – and certainly not surprising that we find ourselves in one of those good ones. But if you don’t like the anthropic principle
– and many scientists don’t – then rest assured, there’s an alternative. You only need to accept two things: that our
universe formed inside a black hole, and that universes can evolve. Our universe appears, in some sense, designed. It has finely tuned parameters that seem deliberately
set for a particular outcome – life. There’s another example in nature where
the illusion of design has a perfectly natural explanation – and that’s life itself. We now know that the fantastic complexity
of living organisms is an inevitable consequence of evolution by natural selection. Inspired by biological evolution, theoretical
physicist Lee Smolin came up with Cosmological Natural Selection. It goes like this: the formation of a black
hole triggers the formation of a new universe “on the other side” in a new big bang. Those daughter universes go on to expand and
make their own black holes and hence their own daughter universes. But in their formation the fundamental constants
of the daughter universes are shifted slightly and randomly from their parent – mutations
are introduced. Some of those shifts improve the daughter
universe’s ability to form new black holes. Those universes have an advantage in propagating
their cosmic genetics, and so gradually the ensemble of all universes get better and better
at making black holes, just as biological organisms with helpful mutations can get better
at surviving and reproducing. Now by happy chance there’s a correlation
between making lots of black holes and making life – both require stars. The universe that is better at making stars
is better at making planetary systems is better at making us. Seems fair enough. But is it any more than a cool story? Bro? Let’s take this apart to ask two questions:
is it plausible, and is it testable? First up, for any of this to make sense black
holes need to create universes. This is by far the most speculative part. In fact we have no idea, and only very tentative
reasons to think so. The idea originated with one of Lee Smolin’s
mentors, Bryce deWitt, who postulated that when a black hole collapses, its mass doesn’t
all end up stuck in the central, infinitely dense singularity. Rather it sort of bounces – but unable to
exit the event horizon of the black hole, it forms a new region of spacetime, effectively
creating a new universe. The details of how this happens is presumably
buried in the as-yet-unknown theory of quantum gravity. There are various proposals for how such a
bounce might happen – all of which are massively speculative, and perhaps we’ll cover another
time. John Archibald Wheeler expanded on the procreating
black hole idea by suggesting that the fundamental constants of these new universes could be different
to their parents. This seems plausible – if fundamental constants
can change at all then surely it’s in the highest possible energy environments, which
is exactly the end of a black hole collapse. Perhaps the configuration of the geometry
string theory’s extra dimensions gets shifted – this would do the job. Inspired by this idea, Smolin added one thing:
what if, when universes reproduces, the constants aren’t randomly reconfigured but rather
change only slightly – analogous to a small number of genetic mutations. If that were the case, a sort of evolution
by natural selection would become as inevitable as biological evolution. We have no good reason to believe any of this
procreating universe stuff – and Lee Smolin has readily admitted that. The point is to instead ask: what if it’s
true? What are the consequences? And can we test them? The exponential nature of the proposed process
means that the ensemble of all universes should very quickly be dominated by ones that are
extremely good and making black holes. Any given universe may not be totally optimal
because its constants varied randomly from its parent – in the same way that any given
living organism isn’t the paragon of its kind. So there’s a prediction: the fundamental
constants that define black hole production should be close to optimal in a given universe,
at least for a given mechanism for making black holes. In our modern universe, black holes are made
when the most massive stars explode as supernovae. There are other ways to make black holes,
and we’ll come back to them. So we should expect our universe to be optimized
for producing as many of the most massive stars as possible. Well is it? It’s actually very hard to say, but it does
seem like there’s some fine-tuning there. Stars are formed when giant clouds of gas
collapse under their own gravity. But in order for that to happen the gas needs
to cool to just a few degrees above absolute zero, rather than the typical 200-kelvin temperature
of the typical interstellar nebula. That cooling is extremely slow if the gas
only contains the hydrogen and helium produced in the big bang. Heavier elements and molecules allow clouds
to cool and stars to form much more quickly, and of these, carbon monoxide is by far the most important coolant. In addition, gas needs to be shielded from
the heating effect of other stars – and that seems to require the presence of tiny particles
of ice and hydrocarbon dust. So without carbon, oxygen, water, and chemistry
in general, far fewer stars and so far fewer black holes would form – and of course these
factors also seem to be essential for life. But what about other sources of black holes? Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alexander
Vilenkin proposed that if a universe lasts forever then in the distant future, quantum
fluctuations of that near vacuum will cause black holes to spontaneously appear – and
given infinite time these will eventually outnumber those produced by stars or stellar
black holes. If all this is true then the most black holes
would be produced by the biggest universes – more space means more chances for these
quantum fluctuations. That favours lots of dark energy generating
rapid expansion. And that is definitely not our universe. Lee Smolin has various arguments against this:
for example, we don’t know that our physics can really be extrapolated to the insanely
long timescales required for these quantum fluctuations to happen. I would also add that even if Vilenkin’s
argument holds, there are no doubt different regions in the landscape of possible fundamental
constants where different types of black hole are optimized. This would lead to multiple branches of the
cosmic genetic tree – some of which correspond to producing lots of stellar black holes. And naturally we’d find ourselves on one
of those branches because those also happen to be the ones that favour life. But, whoopsie, I just invoked the anthropic
principle, which is exactly what were trying to avoid with this whole idea. As speculative as all of this is, Smolin claims
there’s a concrete test for the idea. If cosmological natural selection is true,
then the fundamental parameters favouring black hole production should be optimized
completely independently to those that also favour the appearance of life. And he suggests there is one such parameter. But first some background. When massive stars die, they actually mostly
produce neutron stars – planet sized balls of neutrons so dense that they teeter on the edge
of collapsing into a black hole. Black holes only form when the neutron stars
is above a certain mass limit. Now it may be that in the cores of the most
massive neutron stars, some particles can convert into strange quarks. The resulting material is even denser than
the original neutron star, and so brings the star closer to collapse. And the lower the mass of the strange quark,
the easier it is to convert lighter particles into strange quarks. That in turn means less massive neutron stars
would be able to collapse into black holes. Surely, then, if universes evolve to maximize
the number of black holes, then the strange quark mass should be optimized to make the cutoff
between neutron stars and black holes as low as possible. Lee Smolin calculates that optimized cutoff
at around 2 times the mass of the Sun. So, if this universe is optimized for black
hole production then there should be no neutron stars more massive than 2 solar masses. And? Well, the most massive known neutron star is 2.17
solar masses, discovered just this year. Now perhaps the extra .17 can be factored into the uncertainties of the theory… Or perhaps this is the falsification we were
looking for. We await Smolin’s comments on this. I’d like to add my own objection: cosmological
natural selection is meant to explain the fine tuning in the fundamental constants,
which appear to be either set by design or by extreme luck. It tries to avoid the anthropic principle
by proposing a natural selection that favours black hole production, and it’s just a happy
coincidence that the same factors also favor life. But then do we really gain anything? It just so happens that carbon and oxygen
are good for both black hole production and organic molecules … but what if it was,
I dunno, beryllium and boron that helped stars form – or other elements that were useless to life. If we causally disconnect the selection process
for cosmic reproduction from the emergence of life then it seems we still have to invoke
a good lot of good luck? Overall, cosmological natural selection is
an appealing idea because it seeks a natural explanation for fine tuning, and one that
parallels a known process in nature – biological evolution by natural selection. It also seems to give us predictions that
we can try to test and falsify. And even though this idea is probably not
true, it’s really important to remember that speculative ideas like this are exactly
how we probe the edges of science. No one of them is likely to be true, but they
help us explore the vast space of all possible realities – where somewhere is hidden the
true nature of our reality. Or, you know, our universe’s momma might be a black hole, and we live in an endlessly evolving, proliferating space time. Thank you to for supporting
PBS. If you want to understand astrophysics you’re
going to need to have a solid understanding of relativity. has a course on special relativity
that includes interactive challenges and problems to solve. A hands-on approach can guide you through
thinking strategies for challenging subjects like relativity. In this course you’ll
begin by understanding Einstein’s postulates and the Lorentz transformations, and as your
knowledge advances you’ll learn how faster than light travel can break causality and
you’ll even solve the famous twin paradox. To learn more about Brilliant, go to Hey everyone, thanks for watching – your support each week is what makes this show possible. Now, totally optional, but one way to help out even more is to become a patreon contributor. Even 2 bucks a month gets you access to our
hopping discord channel. Thanks a ton if you’ve already joined us,
and today an extra special huge thanks to Big Bang supporter Craig Stonaha. Craig,
as a small token of our appreciation we’ve contacted our friends at the large hadron
collider – they’re going to make you a black hole universe. Please email us with the configuration of
fundamental constants you’d prefer and we’ll get it right out to you. Oddly enough it’s the same shipping company
as our Merch Store, which you can check out at Last week we talked about the doomsday argument
– the unnerving idea that, statistically speaking, there are aren’t likely to be vastly more generations
of humans ahead of us than there have been in the past. There were a lot of counter arguments – perhaps
good ones because apparently we’re still here. Many people come up with a similar objection. I’ll quote Mr Fantastic, who articulated it
well: A human born 2 million years ago would come to the conclusion that the end of the
world is nigh, and so would a human born 2 million years from now. If we accept the reasoning of the doomsday
argument, doesn’t this just mean that everyone, for all of history, would come to the conclusion
that we’re all going to die sooner rather than later? This point it totally valid – in fact a cro-magnon
should reach the same conclusion and predict doom long before the 21st century – and obviously they would be wrong. But the doomsday argument isn’t saying that
every member of a species who employs this reasoning to predict their species doom is
going to be right. It says that the majority will be right – if
they predict that there will be a similar number of future generations as past generations. And by similar, I mean within a factor of
a few. So ancient philosophers would have got it
wrong – and perhaps we’ll eventually also be wrong ancient philosophers to some very
distant future generation. The point is if any given individual assumes that we’re randomly sample from all generations who thought about the doomsday argument then chances are they didn’t come near the start of their species. Now, the real problem with the doomsday argument
isn’t that users of it in the distant past would be wrong. Rather, it’s that it’s not at all clear that
it’s reasonable to count ourselves as “randomly selected” from all of the users of the doomsday argument. Zahaqiel highlights this trickiness in defining
reference class with a great example: Step 1: Define reference class as “homo sapiens
sapiens existing concurrently with the internet”. Step 2: Observe that the internet has existed for
approximately 30 years. Step 3: Assume self-sampling assumption makes
sense and internet access is bell curved over over the duration of its existence or skewed towards
late-phase access… Then the internet’s going to cease to exist some
time in the next 30 years guys. No one highlights another misuse of this idea. To quote: “What are the odds that I’m born
as the prince of France?”, asked the prince of France. Well, from the Prince of France’s perspective, the answer to that question is a probability of 1. From everyone else’s perspective, the answer is a probability of 0. And this really highlights the challenge in identifying our “reference class” for this sort of anthropic reasoning. Now, the Prince of France knows that he’s the Prince of France, so from his perspective the likelihood that he’s the Prince of France
is indeed 1. But imagine the Prince of France was raised secretly in a normal French family. He doesn’t know who he is – all he knows is
that someone in the population is the Prince of France. If you ask him for the probability that he’s
the Prince of France he should probably say 1 in 33 million, or whatever the male population
of France is. The point is that you need to take into account prior knowledge when you’re defining your reference class. Nick Bostrom has another nice example of misusing
the doomsday argument. Adam and Eve really want to … you know,
hook up. Except they’re afraid of God’s wrath if Eve
gets pregnant. The serpent comes along and explains that
according to the doomsday argument the chances of Eve getting pregnant are nearly zero. After all, it’s incredibly unlikely that Adam
and Eve are the first two out of billions or trillions of future humans – therefore, odds are, they can have all the fun they want without risk of spawning an entire species. But an even better doomsday absurdity was
from thatisjustgreat who says “I was 30 seconds in when I realized the video is probably almost
over”. By that logic, this video is only half way

You Might Also Like


  • Reply Zach Thomas December 23, 2019 at 6:13 am

    talk about the effects of vedic philosophies on our current understanding of quantum mechanics

  • Reply Wasif Nadeem December 23, 2019 at 6:39 am

    I wrote this i don't know whether right or wrong
    Sorry my English is very bad

  • Reply Wasif Nadeem December 23, 2019 at 6:41 am

    We can make the time slower by decreasing the every kind of velocity of system and by removing all types of effects of surrounding on system

  • Reply CatMan December 23, 2019 at 6:49 am

    Black holes don't create a new universe they are new universes

  • Reply Amnesia Robot December 23, 2019 at 6:49 am

    Yin Yang

  • Reply Jeffrey McKnight December 23, 2019 at 7:03 am

    Could the cosmological constants of a child universe be a function of its host black hole's properties (i.e: mass, spin, and charge)?

  • Reply Lgnd December 23, 2019 at 7:27 am

    Originally I thought, How could any black hole have enough energy to create something we define as an actual universe? If I'm understanding this properly. xd
    Anyway we dont fucking know right now..?‍♂️.
    Maybe black holes can send matter and energy back in time to the original singularity?

  • Reply BoneYard December 23, 2019 at 8:11 am

    (first 10 seconds of the video, I haven't watched it all yet but ive freaked out with excitement lol) I came up with an idea 6 months ago that the end of the Universe (many trillions & trillions of years from now) will be when all that's left is black holes, and they eventually all come together to form one giant hyper black hole, at the moment that every last single piece of energy & light that ever existed falls in and becomes it…. the clock resets and another big bang happens. I don't have an A-Level or qualification to my name, it just seems like the only logical fate.

    In case you're wondering how the universe will retract after expanding for so long, well my theory is that LIGHT itself is the candidate for the so called DARK ENERGY, if light can push a solar sail along and be influenced by gravity then it logically has substance of a sort, that is what I believe also accounts for the missing key of what holds galaxies together, LIGHT ITSELF. After all…. everything IS light in one wave form or another, its just such a simple idea that it has been completely overlooked due to man kinds obsession with over complicating everything. Take away the light, and there is nothing to push the Universe apart any more, so that is when gravity gets hold of things when all that is left is BLack Holes, after all the Universe will one day grow darker and darker, but currently there is still plenty of stuff to form new Stars. But one day even the white dwarfs will grow dim and fade out.

    Now, what will cook your noodle is this, the light that has also travelled trillions and trillions of light years across the Universe will also have to be pulled back into the giant Hyper Black hole before the clock can reset, so basically EVERYTHING that EVER existed needs to be pulled in to complete the cycle, but once that happens BOOM! A new Big Bang and a new Universe with possible and identical set of laws and timescale, maybe even people? Maybe that accounts for Deja Vu? lol…. we are talking some unimaginable time scales here, but it makes perfect sense and seems the only logical fate for OUR Laws of Physics.
    I do love thinking! Yet they always tell me its unhealthy to think too much… nonsense haha!

  • Reply Omer Akturan December 23, 2019 at 8:40 am

    What if big bang was a vacumm decay in an another universe?

  • Reply Why So Serious? December 23, 2019 at 8:59 am

    I still don’t think you people get what a black hole is…. it’s a super dense sphere not a fricken hole… think of it like a hyper dense sun with so much gravity light can’t escape it.. the correct name for them should be Death Stars…

  • Reply Nawwk December 23, 2019 at 11:16 am

    As always, thanks Matt for breaking my brain in the quantum level

  • Reply SaToNiCa NE india December 23, 2019 at 11:30 am

    Black holes is a portal to the animeverse

  • Reply Marcin Zieminski December 23, 2019 at 12:17 pm

    When thinking of blackholes especially their ability to warp spacetime into (almost) infinity I miss a thing concerning mass and denisty. Here is what I think. Stellar blackholes are a product of a dead stars (more-less their inner core). Lets say that the mass of the star was 1 before its collapse into a blackhole. Its obvious that the mass of the blackhole created of that star must be less then 1. So here is the question: why does a blackhole warp spacetime more then a star of which that blackhole was created? Why the gravity of blackhole is so much larger then the gravity of the star which it originated form? If its not the mass which warps that spacetime so is it the denisty? If so, why there is no density in Newtons equetions? What if only density not mass is only couse of the gravitational interaction? Mayby the gravity itself is not a fundamental force, but similar to temperature (being and average movement of particles) is a kind of average "thing" somehowe connected to the density?

  • Reply N1k32h December 23, 2019 at 12:20 pm

    Again, humans want to be the centre of everything!

  • Reply aladdin517 December 23, 2019 at 12:40 pm

    I can see it now. Two physicists fighting and one of them says "yo mama is a black hole!"

  • Reply Mubashshir123 Uddin December 23, 2019 at 12:50 pm

    our universe follows the law of conservation of mass and energy, so if it is present inside of a black hole of some other universe then what happens if that blackhole feeds or evaporates to nothing?

  • Reply Gaurav Sharma December 23, 2019 at 1:01 pm

    It's possible, holes that receive sperm do give birth

  • Reply frank x December 23, 2019 at 1:29 pm

    Two observations: 1. Surely the multiverse would get so great a making black holes that they should predominate in the vast majority of universes? 2. If we are inside a black hole somewhere, then our whole universe may be subject to cataclysmic destruction via possible events, such as merging with another singularity.

  • Reply Jeremiah VI December 23, 2019 at 3:37 pm

    Now we're talking!

  • Reply X360HotSwap December 23, 2019 at 4:49 pm

    because things can be so small and so big, can atoms also be universes?

  • Reply Alonzo Taylor December 23, 2019 at 5:40 pm

    It's quite simple, hours universe was created by some people from the anisotropic who just made the settings of our universe because they could. Then they're gonna show up drop a giant cube on an airport and give us things human should not have. Clearly.

  • Reply Bill Matthews December 23, 2019 at 6:19 pm

    So you’re proposing that nebula are the receiving receptacles for black hole activity in other universes. Black holes suck matter and light from one universe, that must be accumulating in areas in the receiving universe to populate that universe. What other reason than to create stars, planets and such.

  • Reply thorcuntdestroyess December 23, 2019 at 7:02 pm

    So are we getting into the subject of a "Blackholethpic Principle" here?

  • Reply Aguijon1982 December 23, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    Sorry but only planet earth is "tunned" for life. Not the rest of the universe

  • Reply KAY DE December 23, 2019 at 8:25 pm

    Mr Black Hole: It just means ur doom peeps thats not hard to figure out ya know T.T

  • Reply Stephen Peel December 23, 2019 at 9:17 pm

    No, they just spit out what’s left of what they sucked in. A black hole is like a water vortex. There, solved

  • Reply Behelith December 23, 2019 at 9:34 pm

    So you apply Darwin's Origin of Species which is proven impossible to explain the origin to species (the chance to create a new species by natural selection in DNA is 10^77, way less than there are stars in the visible universe) to natural selection of universes which probability is way less likely.

  • Reply GREY ALIEN December 24, 2019 at 12:51 am

    Stars that die ? What about the super massive blackholes what stars created them ? They just combined ? Without smb would their b spiral galaxies ?

  • Reply Herculean History December 24, 2019 at 2:46 am

    Hey guys. Life evolves to its environment, not the other way around. If the universe was different life would be different if at all

  • Reply Herculean History December 24, 2019 at 2:56 am

    Qu ork not quARK

  • Reply Remorseless Cuck-Slayer December 24, 2019 at 3:22 am

    Black holes are likely gateways to other universes.

  • Reply Matthieu Carbonnier December 24, 2019 at 3:53 am

    Quasars are evidence they do not create another universe.

  • Reply Daniel Smith December 24, 2019 at 3:57 am

    This is at least as speculative as intelligent design… I'd say even more so, when the information lost to the black hole is revealed upon its demise there would be changes to measure, further more black hole collisions would be like colliders somehow shooting particles of the destroyed universe into an observable state.

    Why so much effort to rule out design? Why insist its an illusion? I would really like for someone (smarter than I) to dive deeper into the possibility of a handily designed universe. Life designing a context for life. Its not that scary.

  • Reply Patrick Hughes December 24, 2019 at 4:10 am

    Even if a black hole creates a new universe. That doesn't mean that the universe is "inside" the black hole. A black hole doesn't have an "inside". It's a hole that's been punched through time and space. The other side of the hole isn't the inside. It's the other side.

  • Reply Matthew Martin December 24, 2019 at 5:34 am

    Space isn’t real. We live under a dome and earth is flat.

  • Reply vertigus28 December 24, 2019 at 7:59 am

    Wheres the parent universe then? the one with all the original particles not absorbed into this particular universe.

  • Reply king Arthur December 24, 2019 at 8:21 am

    So the universe could be an infinite Russian doll

  • Reply Romana Winburn December 24, 2019 at 9:44 am

    "Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent." Wittgenstein was trying to show in this quote that when you talk about things outside of their logical space, you start speaking nonsense. Physics is rife with this sort of nonsense. "Everything came from nothing" is meaningless in that time and space started when matter came into being. That is, there was never a "time" when matter did not exist. It's as meaningless as asking, "what happened before time?" or "where does a flame go when it is extinguished" or even "what happens when an immovable object meets and irresistible force?" Speculating on what happens on the other side of an event horizon is similarly meaningless. An event horizon, by definition, means that nothing can happen beyond the horizon. If an event could take place, then it wouldn't be an event horizon. The event horizon is the end of physics. To contemplate what happens beyond that is, as Wittgenstein would have said, just language going on holiday. The plethora of speculation about black holes without a way of testing any model is a good indication that nonsense is being spoken.

  • Reply Titus-George Bojan December 24, 2019 at 10:01 am

    To test if the theory is valid then we need to find the point of origin in our universe.

    Pop quiz : find the handle / thread for our reality !

  • Reply Ian Wardell December 24, 2019 at 11:47 am

    ||The formation of a black hole triggers the formation of a new Universe||

    How the heck would it do that? A black hole is nothing but intense gravity. How could it create anything, least of all a brand new Universe? Also assumes that each Universe is governed by the same regularities so that black hole formation is possible. But if the regularities ("laws") are the same, then the fundamental constants will be the same!

    Load of fanciful poppycock.

  • Reply Mark Childerley December 24, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    My novel, Path To Life which was dedicated to Stephen Hawing has a surprising answer to this very question.

  • Reply Heka December 24, 2019 at 1:51 pm

    How do we know, that a completely different set of parameters does not produce “life”, either as we know it or in a very different way/form?

    And, maybe all possible (start) configurations of parameters finally end up in a certain “stable” (life supporting or not) configuration, and we just transition through one.

  • Reply Chang Ye December 24, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    What if the Big Bang was caused by the death of the previous universe and the death of the last black hole.

  • Reply Clinton Latsha December 24, 2019 at 3:38 pm


  • Reply Ruben de León December 24, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    Fractal universe?

  • Reply BulletBitN December 24, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    here my thought experiment from listening to this IF a black hole eats another do both universes and their chain universes all end then get remade and start a new chain of universes. I mean if you have evolutionary black hole then there should be some kind of apex predator black hole. ????? and what happens if you have a universe that is so good at making black holes that thats all there is in it…..

  • Reply Still December 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm

    You’re telling me these pieces of shits have been stealing our shit and using it to make their shit? Bunch of assholes.

  • Reply Carl Hopkinson December 24, 2019 at 5:32 pm

    Sounds like a load of credulity.

  • Reply Suman Sharma December 24, 2019 at 6:19 pm

    Matt’s objection can go the other way too; If our life was let’s say, plutonium based, then the universes that produce stuff that helps plutonium based life form would be favourable, and not ones that produce stars

  • Reply Stephen Meakin December 24, 2019 at 10:19 pm

    Consider that each Galaxy has an Oversoul, a super intelligence far far far beyond human, and just as a human Soul evolves in a physical body, so too does the Oversoul of a Galaxy. Upon maturity, covering billions of years, the Galactic Oversoul transfers all of its solar, planetary and other bodies through its central Black Hole into a new Universe (what we measure as the Big Bang) upon which the Galactic Oversoul becomes the leading intelligence, thus becoming a Universal Oversoul, operating with new variables upon which it seeks to experiment and play with the fundemental Forces and Principles of Life.

  • Reply B Mcmahon December 24, 2019 at 11:10 pm

    The luna dreams of the mad professors, dreaming black holes as if its all real stuff lol

  • Reply Daniel Barton December 24, 2019 at 11:56 pm

    The problem with the world today is the belief in doomsday scenarios. It is simple truth that there are hundreds of terrestrial and cosmic situations that could happen at any moment, that could end human existence. However this shouldn't cause people to act in a manner that disregards care for the future. Believing in an impending doomsday can lead to self fulfilling prophecies.

  • Reply Albertus VanLubeeck December 25, 2019 at 3:03 am

    Peace is a lie, only the strong survive.

  • Reply joe tapia December 25, 2019 at 3:37 am

    I'm tired of illustrations that don't show real footage.

  • Reply João da Silva December 25, 2019 at 4:19 am

    What do you think: is our universe a hyperspherical black hole? Is our space-time a fractal of waves? Does the increase of mass when you achieve the velocity of casuality a lenticular effect of the 5-brane object over our 4-brane space time? Please, answer me!

  • Reply Usuk December 25, 2019 at 4:41 am

    Utter non sense.

  • Reply Arturo Bishop December 25, 2019 at 5:01 am

    So eventually there will be a universe so optimized for black holes that all it is is a black hole.

  • Reply Anne Lifton December 25, 2019 at 5:55 am

    I just keep getting stuck on the fact the with mass and energy conservation, every black whole universe must be objectively smaller than its source. It would relate to the issue of why there is the amount of mass plus energy in our universe. Still, it would seem to me that with this theory, any other universes would have to have a strictly less than or greater amount of mass plus energy which would put some bounds on the edges of the universes. For our universe to have begun from a black hole, a universe with some proportion larger amount of mass and energy would have spawned it.

  • Reply KMFDM57 December 25, 2019 at 7:20 am

    I can say anything can happen inside a blackhole because there's no way of ever knowing.

  • Reply rationalguy December 25, 2019 at 8:08 am

    It seems implausible because even huge black holes haven't eaten enough to be but a tiny fraction of the mass of the universe.

  • Reply Sleepily Rimie December 25, 2019 at 9:57 am

    I believe that our universe was created from a black hole, and that our time is warped beyond what we could ever know since there is no escape. The reason we don’t get stretched into noodles is something I can’t explain bc I am a twelve year old girl laying in her bed in a Christmas story bunny outfit on Christmas but one day I hope to give proof that this is the truth. Black holes are so fascinating and basically hold together galaxies so there could be a possibility that also hold together universes, I mean like our universe would be so messed up without the power of black holes to the point where it’s not hard to believe a massive black hole could be the thing we are trapped inside of. Black holes are infinity just like a universe is said to be so we could be living in a mega black hole that has evolved and inside of those black holes are more with smaller universes or maybe no universes. Just a thing I have been thinking of, I told my mom what I thought although I don’t think she trusts me.

  • Reply Mark Nowakowski December 25, 2019 at 10:07 am

    I thought what ever entered a black hole could never exit a black hole that was the concencus I always heard. Now we’re seeing light escaping from both sides of these holes W.T.F. Were being so softly, slimmely, being lied too. Like frogs in normal temp water slowly being heated up till (death)

  • Reply Anthony L. Goraczko December 25, 2019 at 11:07 am

    What if they only create new planets or galaxies ?

  • Reply Anthony L. Goraczko December 25, 2019 at 11:14 am

    If they create planets and galaxies , that would explain the expansion of THE UNIVERSE .

  • Reply Chris Hampton December 25, 2019 at 2:11 pm

    Black holes make new universes by crunching everything up and recycling them

  • Reply Eliakim ishchayil December 25, 2019 at 3:14 pm

    This is pure fiction since it’s already been proven by Laura Mersini Houghton that black holes do not exist.

  • Reply Robert Trotter December 25, 2019 at 8:10 pm

    Aaahhhhh the desperation-principle in science… Well if we were wrong about it well just keep twisting it til we can claim to be right… The black "w"hole?… Intellectual property-"macro-cell" what? :)…

  • Reply Michael Lambert December 25, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    If each blackhole generates a new universe – does this happen once, multiple times or continuously? Somehow I am reminded of octomom… ugh. Is each blackhole a gigantic popcorn popper with an infinite supply of popcorn/universes? Are there more universes than grains of sand in this universe> Seems messy. What we need is a celestial being with a really big push broom and lots of garbage bags.

  • Reply A December 25, 2019 at 9:49 pm

    There's no such thing as the beginning of time. Time always exists, its us that doesn't.
    If the black hole creates the "big bang" then there is still the black hole.

  • Reply Debray-Kingbo Matthieu December 25, 2019 at 9:52 pm

    You know what… Your answer is right. Just saying black hole can create universes as negative expansion, opposite, can create universe. There's probability that black hole connect also to other universes. Also when they evaporate, they are in the process to generate Dark Energy, but this dark energy is not additional to the dark energy bubbles everywhere, it's just energy from past. Black hole looses mass, this mass is conserved only when a virtual particles is not swallowed. When swallowed, the mass acceleration eject a tiny part of mass returning in basis state, tachyonic, because the singularity is made of infinite densified energy. The releasing of mass is of course linked to the virtual particles catched but that's not meaning the jettisoned black hole mass become again positive due to the infinite form. Virtual pairs separated are witness to this transformation.

  • Reply Ayush Jain December 25, 2019 at 10:45 pm

    – Can dark energy (or maybe even some part of inflation) be explained by the spinning speed of the black hole as it implodes inwards and causes a centrifugal force on its inside matter?
    – Assuming spacetime as a flexible fabric, the reason our universe seems to be flat and we cant find a white hole might be result of the same centrifugal force, expanding the universe in a single plane (imagine the spacetime as a 2d sheet, like an inflating, spinning balloon with some fillings, with the opening as a white hole). Hence the child universe will be like a sheet folded on itself, upper only containing a white hole, while the lower contains the child universe's matter.
    – Is dark matter the matter content of the parent universe and new universes created inside the black holes? (That would be too much dark matter actually, I am not sure, but if the matter from the parent/child universes don't gravitationally interact with each other, then it might be the new matter spewed by the white hole into our universe, but as it is on the other side of the sheet (again image the balloon) it only interacts gravitationally.)

    How to test the speculation about dark matter:
    – If the dark matter in indeed the matter spewed by the white hole then we can test it by testing the history of the dark matter content of our universe, also as it has an origin point, the density of the dark matter should be greater near the white hole (unless the incoming speed is too high).


  • Reply Doc Savage December 26, 2019 at 12:41 am

    The problem with a sample size of one? What if the one is not part of the norm, but an outlier? You could end up with a near endless supply of observations that are total garbage.

    Such as, suppose our Universe is the equivalent to a blind person? I.E. People require exquisite hearing to identify objects, hearing is required to accurately determine distance, kinetic and sonic weapons are the best distance weapons, hearing is the primary sense to understand the Universe, ad nauseam. Enter an android with a 1 megawatt laser rifle …

  • Reply Good Khufu December 26, 2019 at 1:21 am

    i like that scientists try to avoid the sentence "set by design " because that will restrict their science and questions, if its actually set by design then they have wasted alot of years.
    add that to ur paradoxes box

  • Reply Canadian Man December 26, 2019 at 3:20 am

    Well I guess those universes would be very little universes that all started with “The Little Bang”.

  • Reply conservative atheist H December 26, 2019 at 4:35 am

    If this universe was specifically designed for life how come we cant find life on every mass in space. It seems more likely to be closer to the black hole universe than anything else. Really it's life as we know it but we dont know if life by other means can be established nor can we know if black holes can be formed umder other universal constants. Really it sounds more like epistemological arguments than scientific in this episode. Maybe you were listening to the evangelical society.

  • Reply Jordan Winkelman December 26, 2019 at 5:57 am

    It’s almost like the goal of the universe and possibly all universes is complexity and evolution, for some reason.

  • Reply Ricky Flowers December 26, 2019 at 7:09 am

    cool story, bro

  • Reply Siva Rama kumar Puranam December 26, 2019 at 7:10 am

    Add eng subtitles to the content so that everyone can follow across the globe easily

  • Reply Drew Trailer December 26, 2019 at 8:02 am

    I’m gonna puke. Why is your head large and body tiny

  • Reply drist mist December 26, 2019 at 8:30 am

    The reason our universe would seem to be perfect for life as we know it might have something to do with it evolving here? that whole "our universe seems to be perfectly designed for life" statement seems wierd to me.

  • Reply blackopg December 26, 2019 at 8:38 am

    how would it look if 2 black holes with universes similar to ours colinde. how would it look from the inside?

  • Reply Matthew Theobald December 26, 2019 at 9:02 am

    the universe really isn't as fine tuned to life as we like to think it is. 99% of the universe is just empty, dead space that's uninhabitable. We only know of life on one tiny little speck of dust called Earth. Life only seems to be able to exist with water, which is rarely found in liquid form anywhere. And the distances between solar systems makes the spread of life through the universe nearly impossible. Life simply exists because it can. That's just an awesome coincidence. we then just look at it in retrospect as if it's fine tuned.

  • Reply MarxistKnight December 26, 2019 at 12:44 pm

    I actually had this thought years ago (that maybe black holes create/are separate universes) but for different reasons. I was thinking about how the only reason we “know” the universe the expanding is because we interpret the red shift of all objects at cosmological distances as a result of their motion away from us due to an expanding universe. But I thought, how we do know it’s not that space time on local scales is actually contracting (i.e. more quickly than objects further away) – the red shift would still be there as their proper distance from us would still be increasing. And then I thought, what does this resemble? Kinda like a black hole, as space time within its interior (notwithstanding we have no idea how it behaves in reality of whether it would even be space time as we know it!) would be falling inwards faster the deeper you got into the black hole compared to near the event horizon.

    Similarly, as matter falls into a black hole, we now know that all of the information of the inward-falling matter is “imprinted” on the event horizon, and that this can be radiated away from the black hole via Hawking Radiation. Well, couldn’t something similar happen on the interior of the event horizon too? In which case, how would this manifest? Something almost identical to the CMB, which would be directly associated with the all of the matter within the black hole/new universe!

    I’m sure my armchair/amateur physics is completely wrong and has no basis in reality, but just thought it was interesting how we can come to the same idea for very different reasons!

  • Reply Basic Dos Gaming December 26, 2019 at 2:00 pm

    Where did the first black hole come from then. I think this principle opens more questions that answers. I also think science needs to stop worrying about time as time is an illusion made up from our brains and.may not even be real and make any difference in the universe at all.

  • Reply Keith Woodhouse December 26, 2019 at 2:34 pm

    Seems like a load of bollocks to me, doesn't feel like enough of an explanation. Too much speculation not enough evidence.

  • Reply jay r December 26, 2019 at 2:45 pm

    Evolution requires an input of energy, organisms must take energy from their environment. If everytime a cell divided and it didnt get any energy and just divided again then its progeny would get smaller and smaller everytime. In this cosmological evolution it seems like each successive universe would be smaller and smaller. Not that the scale would really matter to beings in such a universe since there would be nothing to contrast it with.

  • Reply lohphat December 26, 2019 at 4:48 pm

    It seems more likely that black holes just compress matter back into their respective fields they emerged from. No need for a central singularity. It’s just a runaway momentum well.

  • Reply Finesta December 26, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    All that content in space can be seen as evolving sentient beings ?

  • Reply Ben Liu December 26, 2019 at 11:39 pm

    This whole argument is moot – because we are only trying to explain this using the physics that we only know that is limited to our universe. Just because the constants could be different, does not mean different forms of life under different physics and conditions can form in other very different universes. This sort of thinking is no different from the "everything revolves around the Earth" theory before Copernicus.

  • Reply Punk Patriot December 27, 2019 at 4:11 am

    This only pushes the question back another step: why did the first black hole universe have fundamental constants that allow the creation of black holes?

  • Reply ONNIE TALONE December 27, 2019 at 4:29 am

    why can we not see another side of a black hole?

  • Reply HarryVoyager December 27, 2019 at 4:37 am

    I need to go back and rewatch their fine tuned universe episode, but I find myself wondering if the question of why this universe appears to be fine tuned for life may be a failure of imagination rather than a fine tuning issues.

    Basically life that developed is very tightly tied to this universe's physics and constants, but do we really understand how it fits together well enough to say that other physical constants would not have produced the conditions for some for of life, even if it was largely uninteractable by us, if we ran across it?

    It seems like what life needs is energy gradients of some sort it can exploit?

  • Reply Mark Oliver December 27, 2019 at 5:27 am

    Are they really talking about black holes or Assholes?

  • Reply Sean Wulf December 27, 2019 at 6:18 am

    At which point would the universe form? Would it be continually expanding universe with increasing materials that are continously absorbed or does the universe begin to form when the black hole runs out of hawking radiation?

  • Reply trobot22 December 27, 2019 at 6:50 am

    Wouldn't one 'genetic' line of the universe tree be one where the schwarzschild radius is maximized such that the mass of a hydrogen atom causes a black whole (or the least dense thing in the universe causes a black whole). This would mean that if a thing exists in that universe it would become a black whole. It is a mayfly-like strategy (as in the the universe would immediately become black wholes after the big bang then all the descendants would do the same and so on), that would not result in life.

  • Reply Justin Bohemier December 27, 2019 at 7:16 am

    Everytime I watch PBS space time I keep feelling smaller and smaller

  • Reply Canis Poetam December 27, 2019 at 11:01 am

    It seems reasonable that black hole formation would be governed by a form of natural selection – as would the formation of stars. Maybe I have that backwards. Both stars and black holes form from other stars, so it seems reasonable that there would be a form of evolutionary process involved. But black holes forming new universes . . .

    Didn't Einstein claim there must be something that prevents a black hole from collapsing forever?

    If he was right, then is it possible that the fabric of space, of time, gets sucked into black holes and this helps account for the expansion of the universe? and this process of expansion from an individual black hole ceases once enough matter has accumulated inside it – to in essence 'plug the leak?' Would anti matter just keep escaping through the black hole, into the newly created universe? becoming matter in this new space and time? Would this account for the difference between matter/antimatter in this universe? More antimatter escapes through black holes into new universes?

    Or are black holes the place where matter / anti-matter meet in sufficient quantity to produce mass and nothing more? Would this process still produce the expansion that we see today? and will that expansion cease once matter ceases to accumulate in black holes?

    And Time Dialation . . . ? If Time is like a river, flowing forward, does that mean it has physical properties and is that why time is reflected differently between two objects that are traveling at different rates of speed?

    Is all matter made up of time? Is time a fundamental building block of all matter? Water is composed of matter, it has physical properties, yet I cannot hold it in my hand – does time too have physical properties? or are physical properties composed of time? Would this help explain the function of cancer cells? Do they simply tick at a different rate then the rest of the body?

    Are all physical properties composed of Time . . . ?

    It seems it must be so for without time there can be no physical properties. There can be no physics. Without time there can be no anthropic principle, no one to observe, to take note, to theorize . . . without Time none of this is possible – but

    what is Time?


  • Reply Francois Suave December 27, 2019 at 11:11 am

    not even at 3:00 and headache is kicking in

  • Reply James Fowler December 27, 2019 at 1:19 pm

    Nah, don't buy it. I think we'll eventually find that the cosmo constants HAVE to have the values they have.
    If a black hole created our Universe, it musta been a hell of a big black hole to have spat out all the mass in our universe….
    Just feels like Friday afternoon speculation to me…

  • Reply Benjamin Cushwa December 27, 2019 at 1:39 pm

    So here's a question: A black hole forms in a parent universe, spawning a new daughter universe. Over the course of time, the black hole loses mass in the parent universe through Hawking Radiation until it eventually evaporates. What happens to the daughter universe? Does it die when the black hole that spawned it die, or does it live on independent of that black hole?

    And if the two are linked, looking at the opposite end of the spectrum, does matter falling into a black hole somehow cause the daughter universe to grow over time? Could Black Holes just be a machine for converting matter into space? What if cosmic inflation after the Big Bang was the initial formation of the black hole, and the steady growth over time since then has been caused by mass falling into the black hole that spawned out universe?

    Might the eventual end of our universe be determined by factors wholly outside of it?

    This is all deep stuff.

  • Leave a Reply