I think it's neat that this summary is written by an author of the scientific manuscript. Oversimplification is a risk, but this approach eliminates the possibility that the writer did not understand the underlying science.
show comments
kosh2
I have two problems / questions with this:
1. This theory requires a parent universe that can't have been formed inside a black hole. This means there must a be second "universe creation" mechanism that we can / may never know about from our child universe. For me, this doesn't really answer the true question: "How did our universe begin?" Yeah, it may the "unknown field with strange properties" but instead we get an unknown parent universe with strange properties.
2. The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours since it has to contain all the matter that we see. How is a black hole supposed to form that is 750 billion times bigger than the largest black hole we know about?
show comments
jarend
The article is based on a physics paper (arXiv:2505.23877), not management theory or institutional metaphors.
What the paper actually proposes is that the Big Bang may have been a gravitational bounce inside a black hole formed in a higher-dimensional parent universe. Quantum degeneracy pressure stops the collapse before a singularity forms. From the outside, it looks like a black hole. From the inside, it evolves as a 13.8 billion year expansion. That is general relativity applied across frames.
Simply put this is a relativistic collapse model with quantum corrections that avoids singularities and produces testable predictions, including small negative curvature and a natural inflation-like phase.
show comments
molticrystal
If the crux of the article is the fermion bounce, and you compare that to how much matter and energy we are aware of, that is quite the black hole, which leads one to start wondering what environment it existed in to become that size. Even if it is now stuck due to a positive curvature of just bouncing back and forth.
I would like the article to acknowledge a bit more though that blackhole universe theories and speculation are quite old now, not radical and a striking alternative, as it is natural to think about it once you learn of the concept of event horizons. What differentiates this though is the analytical solution.
afarah1
Interesting read, but even if we assume the author is correct, and the cosmos formed as a black hole in a larger universe, the question remains, how did this larger universe formed, then? Might just be impossible to know.
show comments
meindnoch
I've read somewhere an article which posited that our 3D universe might be inside a 4D black hole. When you cross a black hole's event horizon, the radial coordinate becomes timelike, so you lose one degree of spatial freedom. Movement is still possible in the tangential directions however, so what you get is basically an N-1 dimensional universe. So maybe our 3D universe is actually matter that fell into a 4D black hole, and our 3D black holes contain 2D flatland universes. And of course, the outer 4D universe might be in a 5D black hole, etc.
show comments
kannanvijayan
Oh I have so many questions on this topic.
I've often wondered about this. I don't have any direct physics training, but it's something that felt really plausible after I learned that the mass of a black hole is linearly proportional to its swarzschild radius.
As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. Combined with the other observation that our universe has uniform density at large scales, it seemed really obvious to me that there existed some threshold at which the decreasing density of a very large black hole, and the fixed density of our observed universe.. would cross.
I used to muse about this question with some other tech colleagues that liked talking about physics stuff but never really got a clear answer to this.
On a side note - I'm absolutely fascinated by the implications relating to this. I'll post a follow-up thought I'm hoping somebody else has also thought about:
I've seen discussion of dark energy mostly presented as a surrogate for real energy. That there is some underlying energy "accelerating things away from each other".
I always felt uncomfortable with that characterization. It seems more reasonable to me to think of dark energy as _negative energy_ - i.e. a loss of overall energy.
In a classical system, two things moving away from each other stores potential energy that can be recouped at some later time. Dark energy doesn't work this way - things accelerate away from each other the further apart they are. From a global perspective, it's an energy loss.
The energy loss pervades to the quantum world as well - photons that start off high frequency arrive low-frequency.
It somehow feels more appropriate to me to think of dark energy as energy being extracted out of the universe, in some form never to return. Maybe like a black hole evaporating as observed from the inside?
When I asked this of some people in real life, I was pointed to answers that indicated that the "energy" component in dark energy is normalized into the "tension" of space somehow. As I mentioned before I'm not really studied in physics, but that explanation felt unsatisfactory to me.
show comments
0x0203
If the universe does have a positive curvature as this predicts, would that mean that if we look out into space, we could see the same galaxies multiple times? Or even our own galaxy in the past? Or is the predicted curvature slight enough that anything we might see multiple times is already beyond the limits of visibility due to universe expansion?
show comments
bmacho
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence.
It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
show comments
HocusLocus
Suggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
show comments
edfletcher_t137
> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe.
Does it also follow that black holes in our universe contain universes internally, beyond their event horizons?! Seems like it should. Mind-blowing.
show comments
afroboy
I'm not a scientist or astrophysicist but i do believe in science, is it ok to believe that we as humans and all our scientific development still very very far from proving anything remotely close to how the universe got created? I feel this subject is for humanity in year 2600 to start discussing it.
Scientist still can show their theories and search papers and i can't understand a shit but i don't believe in any theory that proves how the universe got created.
show comments
joshdavham
Would it possibly make sense for a black hole in our universe to lead to a higher level "parent" universe? Or would any black hole universe contained within our own universe necessarily lead to a lower level "child" universe? Basically, I'm wondering if there's a way (within the constraints of this model) to access the parent universe.
Valgrim
A few years ago a popular idea was that our universe existed as an hologram on the surface of a black hole.
Recently I saw also a theory that black hole might not, in fact, exist as we thought, and may be instead something called 'gravastars', where large stars do not collapse in an infinite point but instead the mass reaches a maximum density and hardness and become sorts of empty bubbles.
Now this. It's not exactly a new idea, I remember reading about black hole cosmology 10 years ago.
Sooo... My uneducated, pop-sci fueled imagination now sees the universe as a mathematical function of a fractal looking like a shell with patterns on it, and those patterns interact or 'fold' in a way where the patterns themselves can be thought of as shells with patterns on them, and each shell creates something that, from the inside, looks like a new dimension of space or time, and what we think of as black holes are the next fold. Does that make sense?
show comments
collinvandyck76
The bounce to me has always seemed more intuitive than the bang, but man, when it comes to the quantum universe I've learned to just check intuition at the door.
ogou
The word "research" in this title is a handy placeholder for indeterminate conjecture. No research happened, it's a theory he made up.
show comments
misja111
> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”).
> And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions.
Do I understand right, that this would mean that every formation of a black hole would result in a bounce?
mensetmanusman
Ωₖ = 0.0007 ± 0.0019 (68% confidence level)
If the universe is curved dark energy is still a problem because the expansion is getting faster and overcomes the current curvature bounds.
show comments
tekkk
Interesting sci-fi plot device but seems far-fetched, not gonna lie. To think that our highly stable universe is just compressed mass of another universe is a lot to take in. Does that black hole emit Hawking radiation as well and shouldnt our universe lose mass in result? And how exactly can our universe expand if the size of the black hole is fixed?
Well, at least it does make for interesting conversations. Someone will surely milk it for Youtube content.
pontifier
There was a youtube lecture I saw years ago that showed exactly what you'd see as you fell into a black hole and passed through the event horizon.
You'd see EVERYTHING that EVER crossed the event horizon. But critically, you'd see it EXACTLY as it was at the monent it crossed.
Sounds a bit crowded to me. Sounds a bit like I'd expect the big bang to look.
show comments
truculent
> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe.
What specifically is meant by interior? Does this mean “within the event horizon” or something else?
dinkblam
stupid question: if at the beginning of the universe (before the big bang) all the matter was in the very same spot, shouldn't this have been effectively been a black hole due to the extreme density? if so, how could it explode if nothing can escape a black hole?
show comments
avmich
> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”).
> And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions.
Then how comes the neutron stars collapse into black holes despite obeying the exclusion principle?
show comments
rramon
I speculate that the big bang is/was fueled by all the black holes that existed and will exist, like a huge cycle where all the energy sucked into black holes converges at the same point in time causing the big bang.
show comments
w10-1
As a lay reader, it sounds like they are assuming what they are trying to prove.
Yes, it produces a testable prediction, but seemingly based on a mathematical assumption derived from our observed cosmic radiation background.
> This lower bound follows from the requirement of χk≥χ∗≃15.9 Gpc to address the cosmic microwave background low quadrupole anomaly
As a lay reader, can I assume that no scientist would publish a theory with mathematical circularity (at the heart of the prediction)? I sure can't verify it myself.
Wow, wild this is being taken seriously now perhaps, I first encountered the idea in The Life of The Cosmos ~26 years ago[0] and my impression was the author, Lee Smolin, didn't REALLY beleive it, but he came up with it mostly to have some kind of preferable, falsifiable(er?) alternative to string theory, which he disliked even more, and perhaps more as an idea of the kind of theory we need to explore to start making progress... or that's my memory/impression form 26 years ago, I've been meaning to re-read it for a while since. Anyone read more recently/have other impressions?
(the basic idea was fecund universes/cosmological natural selection[1], such that we should expect to find ourselves, if the theory were true, very near to a local maxima of values such that they approximately maximize the number of black holes produced... but most of the book is really taken up with a fascinating look at the history of physics and ideas...)
Hmm... What if some matter falls into our black hole? I know there are some weird time-space effects on the boundary, which I do not have any intuition about. To my knowledge it may be, that it will never fall in our time frame, or that it have fallen all already. The question is, will we able to see and welcome new matter entering our Universe?
show comments
normalaccess
I've always liked the Idea that black holes accelerate matter faster than light behind the event horizon propelling it back in time creating a singular white hole at the first moment.
There are many many reasons why this is a dumb idea and it's just as much of a paradox as any other naturalistic creation theory.
GodelNumbering
This brings to mind something I keep thinking about for years (mostly from watching too many physics videos).
- Gravity "slows" the time down, gravitational singularity should bring the time to a halt
- Suppose there is a quantum process that makes the true singularity impossible, so all black holes immediately expand right back
- Looking at it from our time scales, even if the singularity existed for a moment, it would appear that "infinite" time has passed while from the black hole's perspective, the expansion was instantaneous.
- From earth's perspective, if the singularity ever existed in a black hole, it stands to reason that when the time "resumes" from a black hole expansion, it won't fall into any of our known timelines since infinite time would have passed.
show comments
hateful
I've always had this idea that perhaps the whole universe had already collapsed into many black holes and perhaps each galaxy was actually formed via hawking radiation. Then our galaxy came out of Sagittarius A*.
ddingus
Great! Maybe the idea of a cyclical universe will gain traction.
In my view, there is one universe. We are in it. It cycles from maximum to minimum condition endlessly. This cycle is much longer than any entity lifespan and for any entity, the current state is THE state for them, and all they will know and become.
What does it expand into?
Nothing. Space itself just gets bigger and smaller over time.
No beginning, no end. It all just is.
tug2024
Why does it always have to by “hyperbolic” instead of parabolic?
taeric
I'm curious on what is "at stake" with this? The close lists a couple of predictions that this can lead to. I'm assuming they will be important in a far future time? Or do these help with some more near term problems?
Edit: I hasten to add that I'm not asking to undermine the research. Seems the more the merrier, there. Genuinely curious on what some of this could lead to.
TheOtherHobbes
Which suggests that:
1. You can have black holes inside black holes.
2. Potentially each black hole is a universe - although some are much smaller and less interesting than others.
jl6
I didn’t understand whether the author is implying that this happens to all black holes or whether the model only applies in some circumstances.
I definitely didn’t understand whether this is suggesting that expanding universes can be contained within black holes that look like fixed-size finite objects from the outside.
And what happens to the inner universe when the parent black hole evaporates through Hawking radiation?
show comments
DrNosferatu
Does this model predict the CMB peaks?
wrcwill
while it doesn't take away from the article, i find it worrying that it seems mostly written with chatgpt
"This is not just a technical glitch; it’s a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don’t really understand the beginning at all."
"The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions."
ugh
show comments
J253
So if our universe is inside a black hole from a parent universe, does that mean every black hole in our universe contains its own child universe? We could be living in cosmic Russian dolls all the way down?
andreygrehov
We are inside of a Docker container.
lkmill
If this is true it almost literally means black holes are a way for universes to make children. If we apply Darwin’s principles of the strongest survive this must mean that universes that produce the most black holes are the “best”. If correct, what does this actually mean?
The big bang sounds like how a computer would interpret being turned on.
Anyone else think this is what happened?
show comments
physix
I think this is a great summary. It's quite intuitive and elegant. Does anyone have any information about what the author's peers think of this model?
I'd love the idea that we are living inside a black hole, which is inside a black hole, which is inside a ...
ahuth
Cool article!
I can hear Sean Carrol saying, though, that:
1. We know general relativity isn’t complete, because it doesn’t take quantum mechanics into account.
2. We can’t say whether this is right because we don’t know the quantum theory of gravity.
But I don’t actually know what I’m talking about.
beginnings
give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest
show comments
gghoop
I haven't read the paper, it's probably well beyond me, but I have always felt that the presumed existence of a singularity had to be the result of incomplete theory.
Aardwolf
Wouldn't it have to be a black hole anyway given how much matter was concentrated in a small point?
pantalaimon
Reminds me very much of Blowtorch Theory that was discussed here recently
it is funny the fact that author decided to explain who Galileo was
whatever1
So, the whole thing is a recursion, and the only thing left to see is how deep is the stack.
danieldrehmer
I sympathize with Lee Smoolin's cosmological natural selection hypothesis, which would require that black holes give birth to new universes within
show comments
lagrange77
If universes can exist in black holes and obviously black holes exist in universes, doesn't that smell like infinite recursion?
show comments
blindriver
Research? Sounds more like speculation.
show comments
hybrid_study
I thought this was already an old general idea; that each black hole ignites the birth of a new universe?
codingclaws
Could a computer simulation also contain another universe, with virtual black holes that have universes?
show comments
hshshshshsh
Big bang theory no longer excites me. As long as we can't explain consciousness all these theories are pointless. All theories mere appearances in consciousness including the universe and everything we experience.
Consciousness has the property to render infinite universes and theories.
But we have no clue how universe creates consciousness.
show comments
PartiallyTyped
I thought the Pauli exclusion principle is why we have neutron stars, ie the degeneracy of a star results in the fusion of electrons and protons to form neutrons and emit neutrinos.
What is preventing the collapse in this case and results in a bounce?
ck2
There's a PBS Space Time for that (from three years ago)
So the expansion comes from the bounce. And we are in a dormant supermassive black hole of sorts. How would it look like in our world if the mother blackhole is actively gobbling up matter from the parent universe?
holoduke
I still don't understand from the article why the bounce effect results in an accelerated expansion of space time. Is the black hole (our universe) in the parent universe getting bigger? And why is that non linear?
tehjoker
This was an interesting read, but I didn't understand exactly what leads to the big crunch. I get the exclusion principle leads to pressure, and this causes the bounce, but why would it continue to accelerate and then decelerate resulting in a big crunch?
I've heard about interesting theory. Since we observe large early galaxies, to explain them scientists postulate that they must have grown very quickly. But recently some scientists calculated how much light would such quickly growing galaxies could have emitted. And it turned out that this light after being dispersed by the dust and redshifted by the expansion of the universe it should have contribute to CMB, up to 100% of it's observed intensity. What's interesting they didn't make any assumptions outside of established modern cosmology. Just So it's entirely possible that CMB is something completely different than what we believed.
lutusp
> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole
The title's use of the word "research," and the paper's content, suggest the idea resembles science more than speculation. But in fact, the paper has no observational evidence, nor a proposal for acquiring evidence, to distinguish it from other similar speculations.
To put it simply, at the center of a black hole is a singularity, a domain where existing theories can offer no guidance. So a new idea about singularities -- about black holes -- should suggest a testable property, to distinguish it from other similar ideas.
I say "idea" here to avoid use of the term "theory," which in science requires observational evidence to move past the realm of speculation.
Don't get me wrong -- speculations have an important role to play in science. But tendentious phrases like "research suggests" wrongly imply the presence of something more than speculation.
sullivantrevor
my feeling is that the beginning of the universe is so unbelievably unexplainable and strange that we will never truly understand its origin
Fire-Dragon-DoL
Do we live inside a black hole?
okokwhatever
Science today:
{..insert here a statement...} maybe yes but also maybe not {...clickbait things here...}
TheRealPomax
Very high "Time started when someone clicked start" - "cool, how did events happen before they clicked start?" factor title.
johnwheeler
So that's what that big blob in the Mandelbrot set is. It's a diagram of our fractal universe.
m3kw9
This theory actually makes sense. Vs big bang where half of the theory is “let’s assume that there is this thing that explodes”
m3kw9
So what if one of the numerous black holes in the universe starts to bounce?
grumple
I've spent the past month or so immersed in Penrose diagrams. Some of the implications of the math and diagrams include white holes (opposite of black holes - spew matter outwards), infinite universes contained within one another other, anti-gravity universes, and things like this. You can also fall into a black hole and make it out into another universe instead of meeting the singularity (at least, an idealized, rotating black hole). Anyway, cool stuff.
hulitu
> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole
Is this OnlyFans ?
rednik06
TARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web.
1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics
Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems:
The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem."
The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy.
The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories.
TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality.
2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism
Core Postulate:
"All that exists is relation."
There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others.
The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation.
This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status.
Realism and Symbiosis
Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones.
The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network.
3. Mathematical Formalism
3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields
At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes.
At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point.
The emergent metric is given by:
g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν}
3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization
Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility.
The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence.
When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws.
3.3. Quantization and Emergence
TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime.
The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}.
4. Phenomenological Implications
TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles:
Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics.
Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles.
Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field.
Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants.
Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop.
5. Scientific Achievements to Date
Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials.
Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation.
Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization.
Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models.
White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review.
6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach
TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena.
7. Conclusion
TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
There are countless versions of this theory out there. Basically, a universe existed, then collapsed down to a single point, and then expanded again (the big bang). Rinse and repeat.
show comments
xorokongo
"Nothing" implies that something exists, this duality creates the universe.
show comments
rednik06
More info available.
TARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web.
1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics
Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems:
The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem."
The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy.
The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories.
TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality.
2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism
Core Postulate:
"All that exists is relation."
There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others.
The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation.
This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status.
Realism and Symbiosis
Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones.
The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network.
3. Mathematical Formalism
3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields
At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes.
At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point.
The emergent metric is given by:
g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν}
3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization
Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility.
The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence.
When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws.
3.3. Quantization and Emergence
TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime.
The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}.
4. Phenomenological Implications
TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles:
Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics.
Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles.
Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field.
Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants.
Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop.
5. Scientific Achievements to Date
Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials.
Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation.
Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization.
Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models.
White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review.
6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach
TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena.
7. Conclusion
TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
Toby1VC
"In my room, redefinin' the meanin' of black holes"
- Earl Sweatshirt
show comments
thrill
Maybe it was the repeat.
Noelia-
When I first heard the idea that our universe began inside a black hole from another one, it felt like something out of a sci-fi movie. But the more I sit with it, the more it starts to feel like the universe is quietly nudging us, saying it has a much bigger story to tell.
If the Big Bang was just a moment in someone else’s universe, then maybe everything we know is just one chapter in a book far larger than we can imagine.
mrtksn
Isn't time a human invention useful to model the nature? It's literally just a defined interaction as a reference, i.e. the sun rising up and going down which is the rotation of the earth.
So IRL there's no time, there's no need to have a beginning or an end. Whatever happened when all the matter was close together isn't the beginning of anything, just a phase.
show comments
jjallen
What if it wasn't the beginning of our universe or wasn't the beginning of everything, including what is probably outside of our universe?
show comments
karol
Beginning is an illusion created by our way of perception. Time is neither linear nor real so how can there be a "beginning"?
show comments
purpleidea
I always pondered about everything in our universe getting swallowed up continuously merging black holes until all of a sudden "everything" is "in" the black hole and then suddenly that's your big bang, and everything starts all over.
I don't have the Ph.D physics/maths skills to work out the plausibility of any of that (or variations on that) but I've always felt I've been good at coming up with ideas.
Not many people these days like to hear this (I myself was one of them), but the answer to this is in Genesis.
There's a reason some of the most famous mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and philosophers of all time believe(d) in God.
The Hebrew name of God, YHWH, literally means "He Who Is." In other words, the Self-Existent One. The father and originator of all things that were, are, and will be, who exists outside of spacetime.
I think it's neat that this summary is written by an author of the scientific manuscript. Oversimplification is a risk, but this approach eliminates the possibility that the writer did not understand the underlying science.
I have two problems / questions with this:
1. This theory requires a parent universe that can't have been formed inside a black hole. This means there must a be second "universe creation" mechanism that we can / may never know about from our child universe. For me, this doesn't really answer the true question: "How did our universe begin?" Yeah, it may the "unknown field with strange properties" but instead we get an unknown parent universe with strange properties.
2. The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours since it has to contain all the matter that we see. How is a black hole supposed to form that is 750 billion times bigger than the largest black hole we know about?
The article is based on a physics paper (arXiv:2505.23877), not management theory or institutional metaphors.
What the paper actually proposes is that the Big Bang may have been a gravitational bounce inside a black hole formed in a higher-dimensional parent universe. Quantum degeneracy pressure stops the collapse before a singularity forms. From the outside, it looks like a black hole. From the inside, it evolves as a 13.8 billion year expansion. That is general relativity applied across frames.
Simply put this is a relativistic collapse model with quantum corrections that avoids singularities and produces testable predictions, including small negative curvature and a natural inflation-like phase.
If the crux of the article is the fermion bounce, and you compare that to how much matter and energy we are aware of, that is quite the black hole, which leads one to start wondering what environment it existed in to become that size. Even if it is now stuck due to a positive curvature of just bouncing back and forth.
I would like the article to acknowledge a bit more though that blackhole universe theories and speculation are quite old now, not radical and a striking alternative, as it is natural to think about it once you learn of the concept of event horizons. What differentiates this though is the analytical solution.
Interesting read, but even if we assume the author is correct, and the cosmos formed as a black hole in a larger universe, the question remains, how did this larger universe formed, then? Might just be impossible to know.
I've read somewhere an article which posited that our 3D universe might be inside a 4D black hole. When you cross a black hole's event horizon, the radial coordinate becomes timelike, so you lose one degree of spatial freedom. Movement is still possible in the tangential directions however, so what you get is basically an N-1 dimensional universe. So maybe our 3D universe is actually matter that fell into a 4D black hole, and our 3D black holes contain 2D flatland universes. And of course, the outer 4D universe might be in a 5D black hole, etc.
Oh I have so many questions on this topic.
I've often wondered about this. I don't have any direct physics training, but it's something that felt really plausible after I learned that the mass of a black hole is linearly proportional to its swarzschild radius.
As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. Combined with the other observation that our universe has uniform density at large scales, it seemed really obvious to me that there existed some threshold at which the decreasing density of a very large black hole, and the fixed density of our observed universe.. would cross.
I used to muse about this question with some other tech colleagues that liked talking about physics stuff but never really got a clear answer to this.
On a side note - I'm absolutely fascinated by the implications relating to this. I'll post a follow-up thought I'm hoping somebody else has also thought about:
I've seen discussion of dark energy mostly presented as a surrogate for real energy. That there is some underlying energy "accelerating things away from each other".
I always felt uncomfortable with that characterization. It seems more reasonable to me to think of dark energy as _negative energy_ - i.e. a loss of overall energy.
In a classical system, two things moving away from each other stores potential energy that can be recouped at some later time. Dark energy doesn't work this way - things accelerate away from each other the further apart they are. From a global perspective, it's an energy loss.
The energy loss pervades to the quantum world as well - photons that start off high frequency arrive low-frequency.
It somehow feels more appropriate to me to think of dark energy as energy being extracted out of the universe, in some form never to return. Maybe like a black hole evaporating as observed from the inside?
When I asked this of some people in real life, I was pointed to answers that indicated that the "energy" component in dark energy is normalized into the "tension" of space somehow. As I mentioned before I'm not really studied in physics, but that explanation felt unsatisfactory to me.
If the universe does have a positive curvature as this predicts, would that mean that if we look out into space, we could see the same galaxies multiple times? Or even our own galaxy in the past? Or is the predicted curvature slight enough that anything we might see multiple times is already beyond the limits of visibility due to universe expansion?
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence.
It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
Suggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe.
Does it also follow that black holes in our universe contain universes internally, beyond their event horizons?! Seems like it should. Mind-blowing.
I'm not a scientist or astrophysicist but i do believe in science, is it ok to believe that we as humans and all our scientific development still very very far from proving anything remotely close to how the universe got created? I feel this subject is for humanity in year 2600 to start discussing it.
Scientist still can show their theories and search papers and i can't understand a shit but i don't believe in any theory that proves how the universe got created.
Would it possibly make sense for a black hole in our universe to lead to a higher level "parent" universe? Or would any black hole universe contained within our own universe necessarily lead to a lower level "child" universe? Basically, I'm wondering if there's a way (within the constraints of this model) to access the parent universe.
A few years ago a popular idea was that our universe existed as an hologram on the surface of a black hole.
Recently I saw also a theory that black hole might not, in fact, exist as we thought, and may be instead something called 'gravastars', where large stars do not collapse in an infinite point but instead the mass reaches a maximum density and hardness and become sorts of empty bubbles.
Now this. It's not exactly a new idea, I remember reading about black hole cosmology 10 years ago.
Sooo... My uneducated, pop-sci fueled imagination now sees the universe as a mathematical function of a fractal looking like a shell with patterns on it, and those patterns interact or 'fold' in a way where the patterns themselves can be thought of as shells with patterns on them, and each shell creates something that, from the inside, looks like a new dimension of space or time, and what we think of as black holes are the next fold. Does that make sense?
The bounce to me has always seemed more intuitive than the bang, but man, when it comes to the quantum universe I've learned to just check intuition at the door.
The word "research" in this title is a handy placeholder for indeterminate conjecture. No research happened, it's a theory he made up.
> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”).
> And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions.
Do I understand right, that this would mean that every formation of a black hole would result in a bounce?
Ωₖ = 0.0007 ± 0.0019 (68% confidence level)
If the universe is curved dark energy is still a problem because the expansion is getting faster and overcomes the current curvature bounds.
Interesting sci-fi plot device but seems far-fetched, not gonna lie. To think that our highly stable universe is just compressed mass of another universe is a lot to take in. Does that black hole emit Hawking radiation as well and shouldnt our universe lose mass in result? And how exactly can our universe expand if the size of the black hole is fixed?
Well, at least it does make for interesting conversations. Someone will surely milk it for Youtube content.
There was a youtube lecture I saw years ago that showed exactly what you'd see as you fell into a black hole and passed through the event horizon.
You'd see EVERYTHING that EVER crossed the event horizon. But critically, you'd see it EXACTLY as it was at the monent it crossed.
Sounds a bit crowded to me. Sounds a bit like I'd expect the big bang to look.
> The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger “parent” universe.
What specifically is meant by interior? Does this mean “within the event horizon” or something else?
stupid question: if at the beginning of the universe (before the big bang) all the matter was in the very same spot, shouldn't this have been effectively been a black hole due to the extreme density? if so, how could it explode if nothing can escape a black hole?
> But how come Penrose’s theorems forbid out such outcomes? It’s all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or “spin”).
> And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions.
Then how comes the neutron stars collapse into black holes despite obeying the exclusion principle?
I speculate that the big bang is/was fueled by all the black holes that existed and will exist, like a huge cycle where all the energy sucked into black holes converges at the same point in time causing the big bang.
As a lay reader, it sounds like they are assuming what they are trying to prove.
Yes, it produces a testable prediction, but seemingly based on a mathematical assumption derived from our observed cosmic radiation background.
> This lower bound follows from the requirement of χk≥χ∗≃15.9 Gpc to address the cosmic microwave background low quadrupole anomaly
As a lay reader, can I assume that no scientist would publish a theory with mathematical circularity (at the heart of the prediction)? I sure can't verify it myself.
This has been one of my pet theories for a while.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39271752
These type of 'theories' I dislike only because they don't get to the root of the problem.
It is the same for 'multiverse' where that is used to explain literally anything 'it's like that in this universe but not the others'.
Sure, we can get creative and explain the Anthropic Principle by mentioning the multiverse.
But none of this answers how something comes from nothing.
Not the vacuum of space and its 'quantum foam' where particles jump in from nowhere.
Because that's not 'nothing'.
One of these nothings ... such as level 9. No possibilities.
https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...
Wow, wild this is being taken seriously now perhaps, I first encountered the idea in The Life of The Cosmos ~26 years ago[0] and my impression was the author, Lee Smolin, didn't REALLY beleive it, but he came up with it mostly to have some kind of preferable, falsifiable(er?) alternative to string theory, which he disliked even more, and perhaps more as an idea of the kind of theory we need to explore to start making progress... or that's my memory/impression form 26 years ago, I've been meaning to re-read it for a while since. Anyone read more recently/have other impressions?
(the basic idea was fecund universes/cosmological natural selection[1], such that we should expect to find ourselves, if the theory were true, very near to a local maxima of values such that they approximately maximize the number of black holes produced... but most of the book is really taken up with a fascinating look at the history of physics and ideas...)
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_the_Cosmos [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
Hmm... What if some matter falls into our black hole? I know there are some weird time-space effects on the boundary, which I do not have any intuition about. To my knowledge it may be, that it will never fall in our time frame, or that it have fallen all already. The question is, will we able to see and welcome new matter entering our Universe?
I've always liked the Idea that black holes accelerate matter faster than light behind the event horizon propelling it back in time creating a singular white hole at the first moment.
There are many many reasons why this is a dumb idea and it's just as much of a paradox as any other naturalistic creation theory.
This brings to mind something I keep thinking about for years (mostly from watching too many physics videos).
- Gravity "slows" the time down, gravitational singularity should bring the time to a halt
- Suppose there is a quantum process that makes the true singularity impossible, so all black holes immediately expand right back
- Looking at it from our time scales, even if the singularity existed for a moment, it would appear that "infinite" time has passed while from the black hole's perspective, the expansion was instantaneous.
- From earth's perspective, if the singularity ever existed in a black hole, it stands to reason that when the time "resumes" from a black hole expansion, it won't fall into any of our known timelines since infinite time would have passed.
I've always had this idea that perhaps the whole universe had already collapsed into many black holes and perhaps each galaxy was actually formed via hawking radiation. Then our galaxy came out of Sagittarius A*.
Great! Maybe the idea of a cyclical universe will gain traction.
In my view, there is one universe. We are in it. It cycles from maximum to minimum condition endlessly. This cycle is much longer than any entity lifespan and for any entity, the current state is THE state for them, and all they will know and become.
What does it expand into?
Nothing. Space itself just gets bigger and smaller over time.
No beginning, no end. It all just is.
Why does it always have to by “hyperbolic” instead of parabolic?
I'm curious on what is "at stake" with this? The close lists a couple of predictions that this can lead to. I'm assuming they will be important in a far future time? Or do these help with some more near term problems?
Edit: I hasten to add that I'm not asking to undermine the research. Seems the more the merrier, there. Genuinely curious on what some of this could lead to.
Which suggests that:
1. You can have black holes inside black holes.
2. Potentially each black hole is a universe - although some are much smaller and less interesting than others.
I didn’t understand whether the author is implying that this happens to all black holes or whether the model only applies in some circumstances.
I definitely didn’t understand whether this is suggesting that expanding universes can be contained within black holes that look like fixed-size finite objects from the outside.
And what happens to the inner universe when the parent black hole evaporates through Hawking radiation?
Does this model predict the CMB peaks?
while it doesn't take away from the article, i find it worrying that it seems mostly written with chatgpt
"This is not just a technical glitch; it’s a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don’t really understand the beginning at all."
"The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions."
ugh
So if our universe is inside a black hole from a parent universe, does that mean every black hole in our universe contains its own child universe? We could be living in cosmic Russian dolls all the way down?
We are inside of a Docker container.
If this is true it almost literally means black holes are a way for universes to make children. If we apply Darwin’s principles of the strongest survive this must mean that universes that produce the most black holes are the “best”. If correct, what does this actually mean?
Notebook LM version https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bb55f273-a5e8-461a-b7...
The big bang sounds like how a computer would interpret being turned on.
Anyone else think this is what happened?
I think this is a great summary. It's quite intuitive and elegant. Does anyone have any information about what the author's peers think of this model?
I'd love the idea that we are living inside a black hole, which is inside a black hole, which is inside a ...
Cool article!
I can hear Sean Carrol saying, though, that:
1. We know general relativity isn’t complete, because it doesn’t take quantum mechanics into account.
2. We can’t say whether this is right because we don’t know the quantum theory of gravity.
But I don’t actually know what I’m talking about.
give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest
I haven't read the paper, it's probably well beyond me, but I have always felt that the presumed existence of a singularity had to be the result of incomplete theory.
Wouldn't it have to be a black hole anyway given how much matter was concentrated in a small point?
Reminds me very much of Blowtorch Theory that was discussed here recently
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115973
it is funny the fact that author decided to explain who Galileo was
So, the whole thing is a recursion, and the only thing left to see is how deep is the stack.
I sympathize with Lee Smoolin's cosmological natural selection hypothesis, which would require that black holes give birth to new universes within
If universes can exist in black holes and obviously black holes exist in universes, doesn't that smell like infinite recursion?
Research? Sounds more like speculation.
I thought this was already an old general idea; that each black hole ignites the birth of a new universe?
Could a computer simulation also contain another universe, with virtual black holes that have universes?
Big bang theory no longer excites me. As long as we can't explain consciousness all these theories are pointless. All theories mere appearances in consciousness including the universe and everything we experience.
Consciousness has the property to render infinite universes and theories.
But we have no clue how universe creates consciousness.
I thought the Pauli exclusion principle is why we have neutron stars, ie the degeneracy of a star results in the fusion of electrons and protons to form neutrons and emit neutrinos.
What is preventing the collapse in this case and results in a bounce?
There's a PBS Space Time for that (from three years ago)
https://www.pbs.org/video/could-the-universe-be-inside-a-bla...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeRgFqbBM5E
Sean Carroll says this is absolute nonsense: https://youtu.be/U3uIiv48q98?feature=shared&t=6046
So the expansion comes from the bounce. And we are in a dormant supermassive black hole of sorts. How would it look like in our world if the mother blackhole is actively gobbling up matter from the parent universe?
I still don't understand from the article why the bounce effect results in an accelerated expansion of space time. Is the black hole (our universe) in the parent universe getting bigger? And why is that non linear?
This was an interesting read, but I didn't understand exactly what leads to the big crunch. I get the exclusion principle leads to pressure, and this causes the bounce, but why would it continue to accelerate and then decelerate resulting in a big crunch?
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.1...
I've heard about interesting theory. Since we observe large early galaxies, to explain them scientists postulate that they must have grown very quickly. But recently some scientists calculated how much light would such quickly growing galaxies could have emitted. And it turned out that this light after being dispersed by the dust and redshifted by the expansion of the universe it should have contribute to CMB, up to 100% of it's observed intensity. What's interesting they didn't make any assumptions outside of established modern cosmology. Just So it's entirely possible that CMB is something completely different than what we believed.
> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole
The title's use of the word "research," and the paper's content, suggest the idea resembles science more than speculation. But in fact, the paper has no observational evidence, nor a proposal for acquiring evidence, to distinguish it from other similar speculations.
To put it simply, at the center of a black hole is a singularity, a domain where existing theories can offer no guidance. So a new idea about singularities -- about black holes -- should suggest a testable property, to distinguish it from other similar ideas.
I say "idea" here to avoid use of the term "theory," which in science requires observational evidence to move past the realm of speculation.
Don't get me wrong -- speculations have an important role to play in science. But tendentious phrases like "research suggests" wrongly imply the presence of something more than speculation.
my feeling is that the beginning of the universe is so unbelievably unexplainable and strange that we will never truly understand its origin
Do we live inside a black hole?
Science today:
{..insert here a statement...} maybe yes but also maybe not {...clickbait things here...}
Very high "Time started when someone clicked start" - "cool, how did events happen before they clicked start?" factor title.
So that's what that big blob in the Mandelbrot set is. It's a diagram of our fractal universe.
This theory actually makes sense. Vs big bang where half of the theory is “let’s assume that there is this thing that explodes”
So what if one of the numerous black holes in the universe starts to bounce?
I've spent the past month or so immersed in Penrose diagrams. Some of the implications of the math and diagrams include white holes (opposite of black holes - spew matter outwards), infinite universes contained within one another other, anti-gravity universes, and things like this. You can also fall into a black hole and make it out into another universe instead of meeting the singularity (at least, an idealized, rotating black hole). Anyway, cool stuff.
> Research suggests Big Bang may have taken place inside a black hole
Is this OnlyFans ?
TARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web.
1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics
Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems:
The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem."
The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy.
The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories.
TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality.
2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism
Core Postulate:
"All that exists is relation."
There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others.
The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation.
This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status.
Realism and Symbiosis
Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones.
The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network.
3. Mathematical Formalism
3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields
At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes.
At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point.
The emergent metric is given by: g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν}
The Symbiotic Action is:
S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[12gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[21gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]
where V(ϕ) is the relational potential.
3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization
Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility.
The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence.
When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws.
3.3. Quantization and Emergence
TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime.
The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}.
4. Phenomenological Implications
TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles:
Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics.
Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles.
Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field.
Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants.
Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop.
5. Scientific Achievements to Date
Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials.
Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation.
Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization.
Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models.
White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review.
6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach
TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena.
7. Conclusion
TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
Asimov already covered this in The Last Question: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
There are countless versions of this theory out there. Basically, a universe existed, then collapsed down to a single point, and then expanded again (the big bang). Rinse and repeat.
"Nothing" implies that something exists, this duality creates the universe.
More info available.
TARS is a new theoretical framework that fundamentally reimagines the foundations of physics. Instead of assuming that reality is made of pre-existing entities (particles, fields, or spacetime itself), TARS posits that everything that exists is, at root, a relation. In this view, the universe is a dynamic network of coherence relations, and what we perceive as space, time, matter, and even physical laws, are emergent phenomena arising from this underlying relational web.
1. Motivation: The Crisis in Fundamental Physics
Modern physics, despite its immense successes, faces deep unresolved problems:
The incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)—the so-called "quantum gravity problem."
The mystery of singularities (in black holes and at the Big Bang), the nature of time, and the unexplained phenomena of dark matter and dark energy.
The lack of a unifying principle that can reconcile the fragmented domains of current theories.
TARS responds to these challenges by proposing a radical ontological shift: relations, not entities, are fundamental. This shift is not just a new model, but a new grammar for describing reality.
2. Ontological Foundations: Radical Relationalism
Core Postulate:
"All that exists is relation."
There are no absolute, isolated objects. The very identity of any "entity" (particle, field, law) is defined by its pattern of relations with all others.
The universe is fundamentally non-separable: no part can be fully understood in isolation.
This principle generalizes quantum entanglement to a universal ontological status.
Realism and Symbiosis
Symbiotic Realism: Entities and their properties are co-constituted through mutual relations. There are no intrinsic properties, only extrinsic, dynamically co-created ones.
The observer is not external, but an active node in the relational web. Knowledge itself is a process of coherent participation in this network.
3. Mathematical Formalism
3.1. From Discrete Relations to Emergent Fields
At the most fundamental level, reality consists of discrete coherence relations, denoted ξ_{ij} (or quantum operators ξ̂_{ij}), between abstract nodes.
At emergent scales, these relations manifest as a continuous coherence field ϕ_{μν}(x), a symmetric tensor field encoding the density and structure of relational coherence at each emergent spacetime point.
The emergent metric is given by: g_{μν}(ϕ) = e^{2αϕ} η_{μν}
The Symbiotic Action is:
S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[12gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]S[ϕ]=∫d4x−g(ϕ)[21gμν(ϕ)(∂μϕ)(∂νϕ)−V(ϕ)]
where V(ϕ) is the relational potential.
3.2. Dynamics: Coherence, Dissonance, and Self-Organization
Local coherence (ξ_l) and global coherence (ξ_c) quantify the degree of relational compatibility.
The difference Δξ = |ξ_c − ξ_l| acts as a "relational tension," driving the system toward higher global coherence.
When Δξ exceeds a threshold, critical reorganizations occur (mediated by an operator F₀), leading to emergent order, the arrow of time, and the formation of physical laws.
3.3. Quantization and Emergence
TARS aspires to a quantum theory of relational fields, where quantization applies to the relations themselves, not to fields on a pre-existing spacetime.
The challenge is to mathematically derive how spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from the dynamics of ξ̂_{ij}.
4. Phenomenological Implications
TARS provides new perspectives and solutions to major physical puzzles:
Singularity Resolution: The regularization of black hole and cosmological singularities emerges naturally from the relational dynamics.
Dark Matter/Energy: Gravitational anomalies are interpreted as regions of relational coherence deficit, not as unseen particles.
Inflation and Cosmology: The early universe's rapid expansion is modeled as a phase transition in the global coherence field.
Black Hole Evaporation: Predicts a slower, non-singular evaporation process, leaving stable remnants.
Consciousness and Life: Interpreted as high-order reflexivity in relational networks—consciousness is a self-referential coherence loop.
5. Scientific Achievements to Date
Full mathematical formalism: Action, field equations, emergent metric, and relational potentials.
Analytical derivations: For black hole interiors, dark matter effects, and cosmic inflation.
Numerical simulations: Demonstrating the propagation of coherence fronts and self-organization.
Distinct predictions: Such as black hole evaporation profiles and singularity avoidance, differentiating TARS from standard models.
White paper and technical documentation: Comprehensive and available for peer review.
6. Meta-Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Reach
TARS is not just a new physical theory; it is a meta-framework for understanding emergence, organization, and knowledge itself. Its principles can be applied to biology, neuroscience, social systems, and artificial intelligence, wherever complex relational networks give rise to emergent phenomena.
7. Conclusion
TARS offers a radical, mathematically grounded, and phenomenologically rich alternative to current foundational physics. By shifting the focus from entities to relations, it provides a unified language for the emergence of space, time, matter, and law. Its predictions are testable, its formalism is rigorous, and its implications reach far beyond physics, offering a new way to organize scientific and philosophical knowledge.
"In my room, redefinin' the meanin' of black holes"
- Earl Sweatshirt
Maybe it was the repeat.
When I first heard the idea that our universe began inside a black hole from another one, it felt like something out of a sci-fi movie. But the more I sit with it, the more it starts to feel like the universe is quietly nudging us, saying it has a much bigger story to tell.
If the Big Bang was just a moment in someone else’s universe, then maybe everything we know is just one chapter in a book far larger than we can imagine.
Isn't time a human invention useful to model the nature? It's literally just a defined interaction as a reference, i.e. the sun rising up and going down which is the rotation of the earth.
So IRL there's no time, there's no need to have a beginning or an end. Whatever happened when all the matter was close together isn't the beginning of anything, just a phase.
What if it wasn't the beginning of our universe or wasn't the beginning of everything, including what is probably outside of our universe?
Beginning is an illusion created by our way of perception. Time is neither linear nor real so how can there be a "beginning"?
I always pondered about everything in our universe getting swallowed up continuously merging black holes until all of a sudden "everything" is "in" the black hole and then suddenly that's your big bang, and everything starts all over.
I don't have the Ph.D physics/maths skills to work out the plausibility of any of that (or variations on that) but I've always felt I've been good at coming up with ideas.
Any physicist wants to work with me, I'm https://purpleidea.com/contact/
Not many people these days like to hear this (I myself was one of them), but the answer to this is in Genesis.
There's a reason some of the most famous mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and philosophers of all time believe(d) in God.
The Hebrew name of God, YHWH, literally means "He Who Is." In other words, the Self-Existent One. The father and originator of all things that were, are, and will be, who exists outside of spacetime.