[quantadev]

The "Big Bang" theory (BBT) is equally as absurd as the Boltzmann brain conjecture, and recent evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope provides even more evidence against the BBT, by showing there are too many mature universes near the theorized "beginning of time" and also the Hubble expansion is off by 8%.

I think there's more and more evidence that we're instead in a 3D reality that's the manifold (surface) of an Event Horizon. We're neither inside nor outside a black hole, but on the boundary of one.

All Black Holes form from matter "falling in" rather than stuff "exploding out", and that's how our universe formed (as a Black Hole, one dimension higher up than normal 2D black holes we see). The general rule is that any N-dimensional reality is on an Event Horizon and will have contained/embedded within it (N-1)-dimensional other black holes (it's a hierarchy).

The JWT also just showed our universe is expanding at a rate that's also inconsistent with our current Big Bang theory, and is off by a whopping 8%. I think the reason we see the expansion is not because of Dark Energy (which likely doesn't even exist), but is because the surface of all Event Horizons only expands over time, or in the case of a 3D (excluding time dimension) Universe we see more and more of volumetric space forming, because it's a volumetric expansion for us, rather than the "area" (2d) expansion on conventional 2D Black Holes.

I also think the surface normal vector (perpendicular) vector, at any point on such a manifold (Event Horizon) will be experienced as a "time" dimension. That's why time is a "special" variable. Thus time only moves forward whenever the event horizon "grows" (due to matter falling in from outside it)

[post-it]

You can always rely on HN to produce a software guy with a unique hypothesis about how the universe and/or the economy actually works.

[quantadev]

I've been convinced of this theory for about 10 years. I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around a 3D version of the Holographic Principle (as opposed to the standard 2D version of it, per Susskind, etc.), or indeed an N-dimensional-manifold version of it.

This guy did tho... (he gets into the good part right at about halfway thru)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8bBhkhZtd8

[post-it]

It might very well be internally consistent but it's not a theory of where the universe came from. It's easy to add complexity, but the goal is always to remove it.

[quantadev]

That's right. It doesn't try to say that everything magically popped into existence like the Big Bang does. It doesn't try to stipulate that there was a "beginning to time" (yes I know that's paradoxical, but you know what I mean). It says things didn't explode outward, but are collapsing inward, which is proven by gravity. There's nothing "magical" in it, that contradicts known science. However the Big Bang Theory is entirely 100% "magical", and contradicts every law of physics that exists!

[simonh]

That's fun. Where did the universe that is collapsing inwards come from, and what is the CMB? Do you have a mathematical treatment of this?

I think the main issue is that the event horizon of a black hole only exists relative to an observer. They're not physically 'real' objects but just theoretical mathematical limits we can calculate. They're 'where the escape velocity becomes c'. As an observer approaches a black hole the apparent event horizon shrinks away from them, in a way directly analogous to a geographical horizon.

[quantadev]

If Big Bang advocates can claim the Big Bang created a whole universe of matter in a single instant as if by magic, then we can likewise make the simpler more scientifically justifiable claim that emptiness spawns tiny bits of matter everywhere, all the time.

The fact that CMB lines up with an explosion theory may simply be that Black Holes are mathematically similar to explosions (i.e. starting small, and growing spherically)

Regarding Event Horizon surface, I say there's something like wave-particle duality going on with this observer v.s. observed paradox. The EH is both a 'surface' and 'not-a-surface' depending on your perspective. Physics is odd enough for these kinds of paradoxes, when there's equal evidence for both viewpoints.