Professor Sean Carroll talks about the early universe #astrophysics

[rud.]

as a 5yo
i used to think that the universe we live in might just be some atom in another universe
turns out this might be somehow true
and if it is then all the atoms in our world might be universes on their own
as a kid i left this thought as it seemed too untrue to me
but now i feel it might actually have some meaning to it.

[matthewheathcock]

I can see why people went the GOD route

[os]

100 billion GALAXIES 💀 and we care about money

[Ragemod]

Makes me feel like we're one of the lucky universes if their is more than one. I also like the idea that we exist within a pinched off fold of space, and the real beginning, possibly similar to how we see it now, could just outside our bubble. We could be a little pocket that faded from our universe and expanded independently. We would know when it happened too, 13.8 billion years ago

[penponds]

“You have to imagine” = there’s no way we can demonstrate, replicate or test for alternatives.

Here I was thinking scientists eschewed magical thinking…

[Vishnujanadasa]

Modern cosmology is more or less mental speculation and gymnastics with usually no observational data to support it, just concocted math equations, and equations can be written to prove just about anything. As Tesla said, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality (Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934).

Astronomy is always changing by its nature as we can only indirectly observe from afar and rely on mental speculation. When gravity couldn’t account for the gravitational behavior of galaxies they added ‘dark matter’ which has never been detected but used as a mathematical place holder essentially until someone finds dark matter (allegedly making up over 92% of the known universe).

The circumstantial evidence supports design. The Big Bang essentially is something from nothing, namely from a singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, at which point all mathematics breaks down i.e. they have no clue how a Big Bang of inflationary model would actually take place.

The universe is a finely-tuned machine which implies an engineer ie designer. Maybe a better analogy is a computer simulation—a virtual reality. Otherwise the Big Bang would have had to generate all the fine tuning we observe in the universal constants. It’s not likely. The BB itself would require much fine tuning as guth as pointed out.

Hawking made many claims and was brilliant no doubt but was no Newton with all due respect. The latter said, “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

Newton also asked,

Whence is it that Nature does nothing in vain: and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world?…does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.

How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts?

Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds? How do the motions of the body follow from the will, and whence is the instinct in animals?

and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?

Say the nascent universe always existed as Hawking speculates—Hawking never explains the singularity’s origin. He just pushes back the Big Bang using mathematical gymnastics. Nothing he speculates is verified or maybe even verifiable. How then did the universe came about from said Big Bang, well no one knows that either. Just more vague speculations with huge gaps and leaps and maybes and possibly etc. oh, and a whole lot of fine tuning that also isn’t explainable. Just a massive amount of perfect coincidences.

Are we to believe from an explosion all order was derived? All laws, yet we don’t even know how local Galaxies formed. The problem is too many people get their science from glossy pop-sci magazines.

As Steven Weinberg says in The First Three Minutes, "The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems in astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution." Then without skipping a beat he says, "But that is another story.” But no, wait a minute—that is exactly the story. If the big bang theory can't explain the initial cause of the universe or major features of the universe such as gal­axies, then what does it explain? Not very much, it would seem.

The singularity the Big Bang allegedly pops out of has no mathematical Backing. The mathematics collapse at that point. To say a singularity causes the universe from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence containing all curvature, space, time, etc. from “no thing” isn’t consistent or rational in the first place.

If the Big Bang came from gravity and M-theory as Hawking speculates (which also has no data to back it up—just speculative mathematics which can be used to justify anything—then where did gravity and m-theory come from? They are certainly something. Did they exist before the Big Bang? Edward Witten, the creator of M-theory admits it doesn’t predict anything or testable so how does Hawking predict the universe out of nothing from it? As Roger Penrose said of it, “...Well, I think it’s actually stronger than that. What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations; it’s not even a theory.”*

It’s clear why Roger Penrose said Hawking’s M-theory was hardly science – It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations; it’s not even a theory. Case closed; game over.

Dr. Paul Davies agrees with Penrose. In his book, The Goldilocks Enigma, he writes:

“Nobody has yet written down the equations that govern the full M-theory, let alone solved them.” (Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, Penquin Books, London, 2007, p.129).

Davies is quite frank about the relevance of M-theory: “...it uses branches of mathematics which are not only extremely abstract, but also extremely obscure. In fact, some of the mathematics had to be invented along the way.” (Ibid)

*Radio broadcast, Unbelievable? with Justin Brierly, the renowned physicist Sir Roger Penrose and Professor Alister McGrath discussed Hawking’s book. The original broadcast was on Saturday, September 25, 2010.

Unfortunately, many cosmological theories are never devised as an experiment under controlled laboratory conditions. Rather, modern cosmologists sit in an office and devise their theories on paper, or computer, using mathematics. Truth be told, modern mathematicians and physicists candidly raise the question whether their equations reliably represent the real world. Physicist Thomas Van Flandern points out that, “Mathematics should be used to describe the operation of models, not to build them.”

We should be clear that if observational data cannot be demonstrated there should be no claim of a new theory. What we would have is simply an uncorroborated hypothesis with mathematical predictions. That was the thesis of celebrated astronomer Edwin Hubble’s seminal book, The Observational Approach to Cosmology. Hubble’s contemporary scientist, Nikola Tesla, also understood that mathematical equations may have no relation to the real world. He explained it like this:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality (Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934).
To recap, modern cosmology lacks experiments under controlled laboratory conditions, and 21st century astrophysicists devise their theories in their office twiddling numbers on a laptop.

The strength of scientific theory is the correspondence of predictions and observation, and the Big Bang has flunked. It predicts that there should be no objects in the universe older than 20 billion years and larger than 150 million light theses across. There are. It predicts that the universe, on such a large scale, should be smooth and homogeneous. The universe isn’t. The theory predicts that, to produce the galaxies we see around us from the tiny fluctuations evidenced in the microwave background, there must be a hundred times as much dark matter as visible matter. There’s no evidence that there’s any dark matter at all. And if there is no dark matter, the theory predicts, no galaxies will form. Yet there are, scattered across the sky. We live in one.

Superclusters of galaxies are too large and moving too slow to have been formed within 20 billions years. Indeed 5 times that amount is required to explain superclusters of galaxies. The black-body microwave background radiation shows no excess radiation energy levels that would be required to form such clusters within 20 billion years. Galaxies move at roughly 500 km/sec. These galaxies would have had to move at least 2-5, 000 km/sec in order to form gigantic superclusters. Then they would have had to slow down again to the observed rate of 500 km/sec. Without anomalies in the black body spectrum there is no explanation how such clusters could form in so short a period of time. This was all measured by COBE in the late 1980s.

For example dissipating the energy from the Great Wall’s (a supercluster “sheet” of galaxies) formation would have to create a 1-5% distortion in the background spectrum depending on what structures one is observing. Thus the background radiation is “too perfect.” The close correspondence to the black k-body curve, seen as confirmation of the Big Bang theory, at the same time rules out any way of forming the large-scale structure of the universe from the Big Bang.

[salvatoregiacomuzzi]

Sean Carroll is a very bright man... But he can't help that physics has virtually made no progress since 1937 in quantum physics.. So what they all do is repeating the same old storys without any new aspects

[West-rn-showvn-ist-chick]

To me he just confirms that existence of a genius creator!

[Renvil_]

There is a difference between «matter being squeezed together staticly» and «space-time being squeezed together and expanding rapidly with matter in it»!

A black hole is formed in the former, while in the later the density of matter is not making it colapse, as the matter is seperated by space-time that expands faster than gravity pulls it together.

The circumstances at/during the big bang are almost unimaginable, and physics as we know it does’t work properly under those conditions!
But the moments after we start getting tangible equations and data.

[loranlomiller]

3 things that makes absolutely no sense.
1. God
2. Big Bang
3. Evolved from apes

[robert-zjef]

About the black hole. At a certain point, gravity would crush all matterout of existence causing the matter to revert to energy, hence creating Hawking radiation.

[AstroHog]

How do we know the big bang created the universe? Couldn't it have already existed and the big bang is what gave us light? Would dark energy have already existed?

[baarni]

This is where things don’t make sense. If the universe was once so small the gravity would be so strong that it wouldn’t be able to expand. After all according to the math once an object becomes dense enough it’s gravity becomes so strong that all directions of space lead to the centre of the gravitational field…🤔

[chrisrea]

Why would imperfections cause a black hole?

[woodbutcher]

Takes more faith to believe in his gods time and chance than it does to believe in God the creator

[adolphgracius]

Unsult unlocked "Your brain is as dense as the gravitational pull before the big bang"

[xalovaid]

Based on big bang theory, everything is squeeze into a small ball before it explode. In the first place, that ball is explode? It has infinite density so I assume it also must have infinite amout of gravity to stay in size.

[diederickkruse]

You know, I did not even think about this before to my shame( if I'm not wrong :p), but gravitational pull really looks like the moment from the big bang in reverse, so even the idea that we live inside a black hole isn't so weird, but it really makes me wonder a lot more about white holes.

[VYMQGSOH]

In order for there to be anything that exists of and within all universes,
There would need to be space, time and matter to simultaneously come into existence.

More importantly, the question is, how did any of it get here to become what it is in the first place?
Things don't create themselves,
Creators create.
Things will either remain, change, cease to exist or reproduce.
But all things that exists that we are able to observe was created by a creator and humans did not get here by themselves without that same creator.

[dannysmith]

What was the force that apllied the squeeze