3 ms·

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

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
        What an incredible keen eye for the obvious you have. Since only one theory is correct, that means all theories are "almost certainly wrong". lol.
        antonvs 2y ago
        No. The point is standing outside the ring shit-talking about how you have the best punch is just BS, and you know it - otherwise you would have published something.
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  Hypothetically speaking, what would it mean if telescope technology were to improve to the point where we could see back to the point in time immediately after the CMB and what we saw were fully formed mature galaxies? It seems to me that there would only be a couple of possible explanations - either the CMB would have to be re-interpreted as some sort of local (but extremely large scale) event not necessarily from the formation of the entire universe or else it would be evidence of a Big Bounce where somehow parts of a previous universe survived.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    The CMB was the only "evidence" for the Big Bang (and I use evidence in quotes because it's wrong actually), other than the fact that everything seems to be expanding as if from a single point. When people still insist on believing the CMB proves it even when we now see fully formed galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, it's only because they're vested in that theory, and they know if it's wrong then they've been badly wrong for their entire lives. Only people with decades of vested belief in the Big Bang are hanging onto it for dear life, while open minded objective people correctly claim the evidence is against the Big Bang, and it was never anything but a wrong guess.
  - antonvs 2y ago
    That kind of observation would have a much more dramatic impact, because it would imply that the theories about what the CMB is are completely wrong. The CMB originates from what's called the surface of last scattering. Prior to that time, density was such that photons couldn't travel very far without being absorbed. During that period, matter was in an ionized plasma state, consisting of free protons, neutrons, electrons, and some light ionized nuclei like deuterium, without any bound electrons. In this scenario, there were no objects bigger than a light nucleus. It would be impossible for stars or galaxies or even dust particles to form in that situation. Reinterpretation would depend on what the evidence was. This isn't an area that we're particularly unsure of. There's a very comprehensive theory of the evolution of the early universe, supported by all the evidence we have for quantum theory. I recommend Steven Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes if you're interested.

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
        What an incredible keen eye for the obvious you have. Since only one theory is correct, that means all theories are "almost certainly wrong". lol.
        antonvs 2y ago
        No. The point is standing outside the ring shit-talking about how you have the best punch is just BS, and you know it - otherwise you would have published something.
DebtDeflation 2y ago
Hypothetically speaking, what would it mean if telescope technology were to improve to the point where we could see back to the point in time immediately after the CMB and what we saw were fully formed mature galaxies? It seems to me that there would only be a couple of possible explanations - either the CMB would have to be re-interpreted as some sort of local (but extremely large scale) event not necessarily from the formation of the entire universe or else it would be evidence of a Big Bounce where somehow parts of a previous universe survived.
- quantadev 2y ago
  The CMB was the only "evidence" for the Big Bang (and I use evidence in quotes because it's wrong actually), other than the fact that everything seems to be expanding as if from a single point. When people still insist on believing the CMB proves it even when we now see fully formed galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, it's only because they're vested in that theory, and they know if it's wrong then they've been badly wrong for their entire lives. Only people with decades of vested belief in the Big Bang are hanging onto it for dear life, while open minded objective people correctly claim the evidence is against the Big Bang, and it was never anything but a wrong guess.
- antonvs 2y ago
  That kind of observation would have a much more dramatic impact, because it would imply that the theories about what the CMB is are completely wrong. The CMB originates from what's called the surface of last scattering. Prior to that time, density was such that photons couldn't travel very far without being absorbed. During that period, matter was in an ionized plasma state, consisting of free protons, neutrons, electrons, and some light ionized nuclei like deuterium, without any bound electrons. In this scenario, there were no objects bigger than a light nucleus. It would be impossible for stars or galaxies or even dust particles to form in that situation. Reinterpretation would depend on what the evidence was. This isn't an area that we're particularly unsure of. There's a very comprehensive theory of the evolution of the early universe, supported by all the evidence we have for quantum theory. I recommend Steven Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes if you're interested.