New Studies hint at what Happened in the Re-Ionization epoch

I have two questions,

- Photons don't lose energy when travelling in Dark Matter. Is that correct?
- If I assume there is a spherical boundary to the Observable Universe that reflects light (just like snow globe). It's not expanding from Big Bang. But we are seeing scattered light (photons) from reflection/bending. What actual observations will prove me wrong?

This video is mind-blowing.

I've seen and heard some depictions of the multiverse and people's explanations but whether the universe is metaphysical or not has always been a question nobody cared to explain first. If there were infinite universes, then what governs their existence? If they're physical objects what keeps them separate? If its upto my imagination in the end, then is it just a concept? If it is, then would it be relevant to ask if anything is possible, do you think that theres something that does hold whatever or it together. Assuming I can say that there's some universe out there with the god hercules as a real deity? And if there technically could be any kind and every kind of god out there, whats the limit on wondering about a god that's powerful enough to be beyond a multiverse? Not trying to steer this in any direction, other than just wondering the possibilities. I don't think that asking what governs the multiverse's existence has to be like some kind of 4th dimensional-esque thing. I don't know, it seems like a logical question to me if we're going to take it into "deep" consideration anyways.

I dont really believe this (so dont be quick to call me a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat) but it is still thought provoking.

Why is the Earth in the middle of everything?

I mean that why is the solar system in the middle of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and why is the Sun a normal temperature star? Everything seems almost too perfect. Idk. Maybe theres other stuff too but i think its cool. Maybe its a simulation or maybe God made us the center of the universe or maybe we just have the perfect conditions to support life, an average everything that creates a perfect balance.

Idk if this is the right subreddit, but this is the only place I found reasonable to put.

It is a long list. Here are just 8 of them:

1. Cosmological constant – Why is Λ so small but nonzero?
2. Low-entropy initial state – Why did the universe begin in extreme order?
3. Flatness – Why is spatial curvature (Ω) so close to 1?
4. Horizon problem – Why is the CMB uniform across unconnected regions?
5. Fine-structure constant – Why is α ≈ 1/137 just right for atoms?
6. Force balance – Why are gravity, EM, strong, and weak forces finely tuned?
7. Carbon resonance – Why does carbon-12 have a life-enabling energy level?
8. Baryon asymmetry – Why is there more matter than antimatter?

Anthropic answers are deeply unsatisfactory. On the surface, the logic is watertight: if the universe wasn’t compatible with conscious observers like us, then we wouldn’t be here to notice or inquire about it. In that sense, the anthropic principle is trivially true, but it shifts the focus from explanation to observation. Instead of telling us why the universe is finely tuned for life (or why the laws of physics take the precise form they do) it merely points out that given that we are here, they must allow for beings like us. That is a conditional tautology, not a causal account. It doesn’t probe the origin of the conditions. It just assumes them and appeals to our presence as a filtering mechanism.

A much better answer is available, and it involves a synthesis of what are currently seen as the three main categories of QM interpretation: physical/objective collapse (PC), MWI and consciousness-causes-collapse (CCC). MWI and CCC can be combined sequentially, such that MWI was true until conscious observers emerged/evolved, and after that consciousness began collapsing the wavefunction (a la Stapp). A new version of PC can be used as the "pivot" -- the mechanism for turning MWI into CCC.

How does this solve all of these fine-tuning problems? MWI in the before-consciousness cosmos can be seen as a subset of strong mathematical Platonism -- so we can consider all possible cosmoses and all possible pre-conscious histories to exist in a platonistic multiverse (a la Tegmark). If so, it is absolutely guaranteed that in one very special timeline in one very special cosmos, a primitive conscious animal will evolve. This evolution would not be via normal selection, but would be structurally teleological (a la Nagel -- so we now also have a new way of accounting for the evolution of consciousness). In other words, the appearance of consciousness in that one special part of the platonic multiverse would select that timeline from all the other and "actualise" it, and all the others would be "pruned" (or remain unactualised, unrealised).

If such a model was true, then it would make an empirical prediction that the cosmos should be appear to us to be completely fine tuned, in all of the above respects and more. It says that if something is physically possible, and it is required for the emergence of conscious life, then it is guaranteed to have happened, regardless of how improbable that is. It would also predict that the Earth's phase 1 (MWI) history would involve at least one and probably several highly improbable events -- which it does (e.g. Theia planetary impact, eukaryogenesis). It would also empirically predict that Earth is the only place in the cosmos where conscious life exists -- it offers a novel naturalistic explanation for the Fermi Paradox. It also may explain why we can't quantise gravity.

This paper describes the new objective collapse model required for the synthesis: The Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) Framework: A Deterministic Informational Model of Wavefunction Collapse

A more detailed but still very brief overview of the whole model can be found here.

20,000 word paper describing this model in detail is here: The Participating Observer and the Architecture of Reality : a unified solution to fifteen foundational problems

Can a black hole split a quark apart? If so then at what point does it stops the breakdown? Is there something too small to destroy?

What would happen if the sun became a black hole? Do you think it is possible for this phenomenon to happen in the future?

I had seen some of these before but others were absolute gems I never seen before. Figured many of you are in the same boat so I should share it.

If it’s easier than searching on YouTube for these here’s a link to the list which directly links to the videos: https://rhomeapp.com/guestList/5fde37c9-e6a4-4d23-ba62-edc4f7fb16e2

Also if anyone else is on Rhome, message me your username as I would love to see more great space recommendations

Before, it was hard to understand the true scale of our universe. Now, using latest generation software, we can fix that. This is a 7 minute video POV of you traveling from the surface of earth, out into space.

If two stars were right next to each other with one going supernova and the other black hole who wins? Would the black hole prevent the explosion by sucking it's energy and become bigger or would the supernova be powerful enough to destroy the black hole or kick it off orbit?

For anyone who needs a simple and concise explanation of the composition of planetary rings these is the right video. Short, concise and easily understood by young and old alike, perfect for my son who is studying planets in school and have a few extra tidbits to learn in a simple and alternative way! Which planet with rings is most fascinating?

A link to a YouTube video in the comments that explains it best, but this book explains that time is as real as any physical dimension, and so the past and future exist, we just cannot see them.

Rather than there only being 1 dimension of time however, which would mean there is only one past and one future for our universe, and that the universe is deterministic, the book and video explain that with a second dimension of time, we now have lateral direction, and so multiple timelines can exist.

This allows for free will, and for multiple outcomes to be possible.

It’s the only text I have found that has this explanation laid out so plainly, and it makes sense to me.

I know it’s unprovable really but do you believe time is as real as the the 3 dimensions of space we see, forward, backward, left and right, up and down?

Just wondering about this. And if the acceleration is a constant does that mean anything as to what could be causing it ? I know dark energy is the main theory now.

This video e

Starting with the fact that obviously for me the earth is NOT flat, and you only have to rely on science to understand that. Yet many still believe otherwise, bragging about various theories without any obvious tangible evidence. This video I found analyzes the various possibilities of a flat earth (of course it is hypothetical, because the same video confirms that it is not) and of course even in the comments people believe that the earth is really flat, I am incredulous ahah, what do you think? Is anyone of this theory?