6 ms·

Sean Carroll discusses this in "The Universe is not a Black Hole": https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/ https:

Sean Carroll discusses this in "The Universe is not a Black Hole": https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-uni... Relevant quote: > "Still, some folks will stubbornly insist, there has to be something deep and interesting about the fact that the radius of the observable universe is comparable to the Schwarzschild radius of an equally-sized black hole. And there is! It means the universe is spatially flat."

quantadev 2y ago
Sean Carroll is not really an unbiased party. He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory, so he's going to simply disagree with anything else, and he's going to disagree with anything that's not a "standard" theory. He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.
- antonvs 2y ago
  > He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not aware of Carroll having "his own theory" that he's "staked his entire reputation on." In any case, he's explained his position, even in the quote I provided. He's simply describing what general relativity says about this. If you have some issue with it, you can respond on technical grounds, without needing to resort to ad hominem. > He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. Big Bang is not "disproven" - the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang is still known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," and nothing has replaced it as a consensus among mainstream scientists. > There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct. The issue of galaxy ages has a number of reasonable explanations in the context of Lambda-CDM. One of them could simply have to do with age estimates, which is an area that suffers from limited observational data that's difficult to interpret. Recent work on the Hubble tension may help resolve that, e.g.: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-suggests-our-model-universe-may-hold-after-all https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-sugg... The idea that galaxy ages "disproves" Big Bang theory is at best, a misunderstanding of pop science hype, and at worst pseudoscience. That's not how science works, especially in cosmology where most evidence is very indirect and subject to interpretation.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    The Big Bang theory makes more assumptions and contradicts more evidence than just assuming our universe is an event horizon embedded in a higher dimensional space. The Event Horizon explains lots of things the Big Bang doesn't also, like why time is a special dimension, and why space always only expands. The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence. The Event Horizon theory doesn't postulate a "beginning" of everything, in the comical "it popped into existence" nonsense of the Big Bang. The EH theory doesn't try to establish a first-mover or uncaused-cause. It just describes how the universe is without trying to describe any "magical" beginnings. The Big Bang is a theory about magic, not a theory of science.
    - antonvs 2y ago
      > The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence. Can you point me to any papers about this? Preferably peer-reviewed.
      - quantadev 2y ago
        It's my own theory, which I haven't published. "Holographic Theory" (Susskind) is similar but still quite different. But others are having similar ideas, as seen in this video: https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450 https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450
        antonvs 2y ago
        https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-sc... The reason scientists do peer review is captured well by the Mike Tyson quote, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” which we can rephrase as, "Everyone has a theory until they undergo peer review." The point is that your theory is almost certainly wrong, but you won't find out how wrong it is unless you describe it in enough detail for others to check it.

quantadev 2y ago

Sean Carroll is not really an unbiased party. He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory, so he's going to simply disagree with anything else, and he's going to disagree with anything that's not a "standard" theory. He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.

antonvs 2y ago
> He has his entire reputation staked on him being right about his own theory You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not aware of Carroll having "his own theory" that he's "staked his entire reputation on." In any case, he's explained his position, even in the quote I provided. He's simply describing what general relativity says about this. If you have some issue with it, you can respond on technical grounds, without needing to resort to ad hominem. > He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. Big Bang is not "disproven" - the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang is still known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," and nothing has replaced it as a consensus among mainstream scientists. > There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct. The issue of galaxy ages has a number of reasonable explanations in the context of Lambda-CDM. One of them could simply have to do with age estimates, which is an area that suffers from limited observational data that's difficult to interpret. Recent work on the Hubble tension may help resolve that, e.g.: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-suggests-our-model-universe-may-hold-after-all https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-sugg... The idea that galaxy ages "disproves" Big Bang theory is at best, a misunderstanding of pop science hype, and at worst pseudoscience. That's not how science works, especially in cosmology where most evidence is very indirect and subject to interpretation.
- quantadev 2y ago
  The Big Bang theory makes more assumptions and contradicts more evidence than just assuming our universe is an event horizon embedded in a higher dimensional space. The Event Horizon explains lots of things the Big Bang doesn't also, like why time is a special dimension, and why space always only expands. The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence. The Event Horizon theory doesn't postulate a "beginning" of everything, in the comical "it popped into existence" nonsense of the Big Bang. The EH theory doesn't try to establish a first-mover or uncaused-cause. It just describes how the universe is without trying to describe any "magical" beginnings. The Big Bang is a theory about magic, not a theory of science.
  - antonvs 2y ago
    > The Event Horizon theory explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot explain and contradicts NONE of the evidence. Can you point me to any papers about this? Preferably peer-reviewed.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      It's my own theory, which I haven't published. "Holographic Theory" (Susskind) is similar but still quite different. But others are having similar ideas, as seen in this video: https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450 https://youtu.be/A8bBhkhZtd8?si=3CLPl_WAoQDnfYfc&t=1450
      - antonvs 2y ago
        https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-sc... The reason scientists do peer review is captured well by the Mike Tyson quote, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” which we can rephrase as, "Everyone has a theory until they undergo peer review." The point is that your theory is almost certainly wrong, but you won't find out how wrong it is unless you describe it in enough detail for others to check it.