← Back to context

Comment by pixl97

18 days ago

With the size of quasars we're seeing in the early universe, direct collapse seems likely.

Of course this begs the next question of how didn't the universe just collapse back in on itself!

Inflation seems to have been tuned to ensure this didn't happen, giving the cosmos time to grow while ensuring it didn't grow so quickly that galaxies couldn't form.

Cosmological natural selection provides an explanation for this, too.

  • "Cosmological natural selection provides an explanation"

    This is the biggest reach in your entire essay, that black wholes create new universes. The event horizon is complete cut off from this universe and speculating that generations upon generations of universes are created from black holes is fanciful. Your just shoehorn what is basically a massive anthropic principle onto an interesting cosmology theory unnecessarily.

    • I understand your skepticism. But the awkward fact remains that three-stage cosmological natural selection made accurate predictions about the early universe, in advance of the James Webb Space Telescope data.

      https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...

      No other theory made such accurate predictions. So it might be worth at least exploring the theory and its implications further. Certainly, there is a funding and research mismatch between ΛCDM (which did not predict what we are now seeing) and three-stage cosmological natural selection (which did) that is... startling.

      2 replies →

    • As I understand it, it's answering the question of why there's so much fine-tuning in the universe.

      It's an explanation, it fits the observed data. It can't be tested, and the predictions it makes can't be verified. So until we can verify that new universes are created from black holes, with properties inherited from the parent universe, then it's just speculation. But interesting speculation.

      And it's a real question that does need some kind of answer.

      1 reply →