Was the Big Bang wrong?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Seattle, May 2, 2023.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I'm asking this for those who have followed the latest from the James Webb telescope more closely than I have. If I understand the new story correctly there are early galaxies that formed more quickly than would have been possible following the BB theory.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I'm not up with all the latest results. However, James Webb is producing lots of puzzling (as in unexpected) results, which tend to get astronomers scratching their heads.

    If galaxies appear to have formed more quickly than expected, there are a few possible explanations, such as:
    1. Something is wrong in our theories of how galaxies form.
    2. Something is wrong with our cosmological model (BB theory etc.)
    3. Something is wrong with the observations.
    In this case, if I had to put money on it, I'd say that the solution in this case will turn out to be (1), rather than (2). I can't think of how (3) could be the problem in this case. But, like I said, I haven't read anything much about this, and I'm not an astronomer/cosmologist, so all 3 are live options.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I think I'd put my money on 2 or 1 and 2, although 2 kind of implies 1 as well. My money would be (I think) on whatever the theory is involving one Universe ending and leading to the start of a new Universe.

    It's all just guessing on my part of course. I tend to not think we are wrong (to that degree) about how galaxies form to be off by that much. By the way, this is just my opinion and I'm not being paid to promote any theory and I've never been an astrophysicist although I own several telescopes and have read several books on astrophysics so I may have some biases.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    It's too early to say. Just paycheck hysteria stemming from the usual "publish/speak or perish" need to opportunistically capitalize on premature or tentative information.

    Do JWST’s results contradict the Big Bang?

    EXCERPTS (Ethan Siegel): For one, the early surveys that are pointing to these conflicts are coming from very small, and possibly atypical, regions of the sky...

    [...] For another, it’s possible that light from an active supermassive black hole at the centers of these galaxies is “polluting” our view, and making us think that these galaxies are more massive and rich in stars than they actually are...

    [...] For yet another, it’s possible that these galaxies aren’t actually brighter and more massive than we expect — at least, not by the amount we’ve initially concluded — because JWST is overperforming.

    [...] And finally, it’s possible that we’ve gotten some detail like gas cooling, halo identification, the nonlinear growth of structure, or the effects of stellar feedback or magnetic fields incorrect...

    [...] Without better data — i.e., a deep, large-area, robustly calibrated, spectroscopic survey — we don’t even know if these galaxies truly possess anomalous properties...

    [...] And even if they do, there are an enormous number of astrophysical possibilities that invoke no fundamentally new physics that could potentially account for why these galaxies would exist with these large masses and brightnesses...

    [...] A lot of people are making a lot of early, extraordinary claims about these galaxies, but we have to keep in mind that sound, responsible science progresses slowly, and always follows the evidence. The important thing isn’t to be the first one to speculate as to what the ultimately right answer is, but to get it right without unjustifiably crying “wolf” along the way.
    exchemist and Seattle like this.
  8. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    With data emerging from JWST again prompting rejigging of BBT,

    Have you ever been a suspect in a major crime? A bank robbery perhaps? A couple of detectives grill you to try to get your story clear. Next day, you are brought back to be reinterviewed by more senior detectives, and are asked to account for your actions and motives in greater detail. Then they are replaced by a more hostile team and much the same questions are asked again. They let it go for a week or so, or perhaps for much longer, and then you are brought back and grilled by a new team. By this time you are thoroughly sick of answering the same questions time and time again.
    What they are looking for are CHANGES in your explanations, which almost always reveal what you consider to be the weakest (most hard to believe) parts of your story.
    Nothing identifies a villain like a change in his story.

    NOW ASK YOURSELF! How would detectives react to a gang of scientists under interrogation for support of the Big Bang Theory? Over the many years that the case has been pursued, the details and explanations have changed so many times that by now the gang’s original story is in tatters. It seems that one pack of inventions is followed by another. Yet many of the gang are still earning a living by hawking versions of the story to learned journals and TV science shows. If peddling these imaginings/fabrications were considered a felony, THE GANG WOULD ALL BE UNDER ARREST by now.

  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Hypotheses by their nature are subject to change and refinement in the light of new evidence. It is the detective, in a criminal investigation, that formulates the hypothesis. Not the witnesses or the suspects. So your analogy is pretty crap.

    But I'm intrigued. What are the changes that you have in mind?
  10. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Another possibility is that these galaxies have a larger proportion of massive stars. When estimating this mass, they measure their brightness and they assume a ratio that matches that for nearer galaxies, which is known to be consistent.
    Because of the mass-luminescence relation, the brightness of a star increases at a faster rate than it mass does. A star 1/10 the mass of the Sun is only 1/100 as bright, and one 10 times its mass is 4400 time brighter. Thus it would take 44 time the mass in 0.1 solar mass stars, to produce the same amount of light produced by 10 solar mass stars.
    So, if galaxies in the early universe skewed more towards having massive stars, this would mean that they would need less total mass to be as bright as they are.
    A closer examination of the spectra of this galaxies could help to determine if this is the case.
    Seattle and C C like this.
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    It depends. Do you think the universe is only so big as there is no way the Big Bang could create endless distance. Maybe the universe has always been, always creating its self from before, from the fire of its own destruction, thus creating stars, and life barring planets forever. That makes the human race possible, and it is created, and they live out a life fantasy, and then they finally go into nirvana, as the circle of mortal life goes on forever. If St. Michael must return He sends a new avatar, as the old one joins the endless helpers of the same nature.

    I think
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2024
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You do? Are you sure?
  13. kx000 Valued Senior Member

  14. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    BB theory encompasses the whole thing but is silent on t=0, only a fraction of a second after, then there was rapid expansion of a QGP.

    Best book on this for us guys is the Weinberg general readers "The first 3 minutes."

    There was a BB.

    And yes, what Webb has cast doubt on is how massive and complicated galaxies should or could be within the first 500 million years based on current models.
    Hubble had data, Webb has clearer and more detailed data.
    Size, shape and complexity not fitting.

    Connected to this is the MOND versus DM camps and the Hubble tension.

    In short, how did galaxies form so quickly?
    Where is all the missing mass?
    Why the accelerated expansion?
    Why does the CMBR data and standard candle data disagree?
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape:
    I don't know, but I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of "support". No cosmologists dispute established facts such as the observed expansion of the universe, for example. They all "support" that finding.
    I can't see how you managed to reach that conclusion about the "original story". What original story are you talking about, and why do you think it is in tatters?
    This is how science works. It's a cycle. Observations are made. Scientists formulate hypotheses to explain the observations and to guide future observational programmes. New observations are made. Some of the expectations from the hypotheses are supported by the new observations; others are not. So, scientists adjust the hypotheses or, in cases where the data makes them no longer tenable in any form, throw them out for a completely different set of hypotheses. Then, observations are made to check the new hypotheses. And so on. Business as usual in science.

    Do you know what you get when you're unwilling to revise any hypotheses? You get a dogma. You might even get a religion if you push it hard enough and manage to attract enough people who are willing to believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
    I think it's time you provided some specifics, don't you. What imaginings and fabrications are you thinking of?

    If you're accusing scientists of lying to the public, can you make your accusations specific? What are they lying about? What facts disprove their lies?
    origin and Pinball1970 like this.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Because it assumes the existence of the same spacetime properties and laws we observe today? But why should that have to be the case?

    Consider a condition of "nothingness" prior to the BB (a mega-quantum event?). An absolute nothingness, timeless, dimensionless, gravityless condition without any restrictive properties of any kind, allowing for light (energy) to expand (travel) at FTL and consequently form a rapidly expanding spacetime and galaxies at a much faster rate than later when the plasma cooled and the current universal laws emerged as the governing condition after the uncontrolled and chaotic "inflationary epoch" until the expanding spacetime fabric acquired its current measurable properties and began to order itself.

    In the absence of any possible alternative, to me this sounds entirely reasonable and potentially possible.
    Of course it does not explain the "singularity" and how the BB itself originated, but that is not the question.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2024
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    That's not a ridiculous idea. However, it is not a new idea, either.

    It's an idea that's easy to state, but that's just the start of what you'd need to do to show that it is actually a viable explanation. You'd need to work out the specifics of how the properties and laws were in the past, and how and why they changed from how they were then to how they are now. In other words, you'd need a testable scientific hypothesis, not just guesswork and vague thoughts that "this might be possible".

    Because all astronomy involves looking back in time (and the farther away we look the further back in time we look), some astronomers have already investigated the question of whether and how the laws of physics might have been different in the past, to some extent. So far as I'm aware, no compelling reasons have come to light to make us think that the laws have changed over time. But who knows? Maybe some new theory will change minds and sort the problems.
    A couple of problems with that. First, what is "nothingness" (let alone a "condition of nothingness")? Do you mean an absolute absence of anything at all? How could anything come from that? Or do you mean some kind of ultraverse in which certain quantum fields already exist? Or something else?

    Second, your idea of "prior to the BB" is problematic if time itself was created at the Big Bang. In that case, there would be no "prior".

    Note that the current BB theory does not specify what, if anything, existed prior to $10^{-43}$ seconds after the "bang" started.
    So no ultraverse, then. You want an "absolute" nothingness. How can something come from nothing?
    Light is not energy. Energy is not light. So there is no such thing as "light (energy)".

    How can an absolute nothingness allow for anything? Your absolute nothingness, remember, is timeless, dimensionless, gravityless and all those things. That all seems quite restrictive to me.

    Also, it makes very little sense to claim that light can travel FTL. You really need to explain that.
    That's just standard BB theory with inflation, more or less. The stuff subsequent to $t=10^{-43}$ seconds is understood to a greater or lesser extent.
    What do you mean by "uncontrolled"? Uncontrolled by the laws of physics? Or something else?

    And what do you mean by "chaotic"? In what sense was the "inflationary epoch" chaotic?
    You haven't started to work on your hypothesis, with this. There's a glaring gap between your "absolute nothingness" with no properties and your expanding spacetime fabric with its current measuable properties. How do you propose it went from A to B, exactly? So far, you haven't actually explained anything.
    What did you do to determine that there is an absence of any possible alternative?

    How, exactly, did you rule out all other conceivable alternatives?
    The "singularity" is not a physical thing. It describes a breakdown or limitation in a mathematical theory - that's all.

    For instance, there's nothing in the BB theory that says that all matter and energy was ever contained in an infinitely compressed single point in space. $t=0$ leads to infinities in certain mathematical models, but those don't necessarily tell us about the universe. They tell us that the maths stops working, there. i.e. we need a better mathematical (physical) theory. But we have known that for a very long time now.
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  18. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately it looks like the OP may have come across one of those, " the BB is wrong and JWST has proved it," YouTube videos.

    Those tend to get more hits than, "JWST puts Lambda CDM model under scrutiny," or "New Gaia data analysis provides high sigma for MOND over CDM."

    You tube does have a few decent posters like Becky/Anton but best to register for an on line mag like Phys.org too to supplement pop sci vid.
  19. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    A few good points from you.

    The speed of light was one parameter that a few papers suggested has change and could explain some phenomena like explanation of the universe, times and rates.


    Why did inflation happen? Why did it stop? Why did the expansion start accelerating, around 5 billion years ago?

    Also this from Gupta et all- I thought “tired light “ was debunked but this paper uses it, explains “impossible” galaxies.

    exchemist likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I did and of course it is not testable as it concerns the nature of the pre-BB condition, before the universe came into existence.

    IMO, this only lends itself to deductive reasoning from known properties and behavior of light and the only environment that can produce FTL.

    AFAIK, the only (environmental) condition that can permit FTL is the total absence of any possible resistance, i.e. a timeless, dimensionless, condition of nothingness.

    Once the Inflationary epoch established an initial spacetime object, all things within that object were subject to the emergent properties and relational (universal) geometrics of the whole object. (See Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order")...?


    The ringing Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The ringing Universe
    Read again, I did note that specifically.
    It would appear that the BB was mega-quantum event, where everything happened all at the same time in the same place (singularity), unrestrained by any (not yet extant) natural laws and ordering principles.

    The natural (universal) regulating mechanisms came later, emerging from the interior of the geometrically expanding and cooling universal manifold.

    I believe that Chaos Theory defines it, and also suggests the emergence of recurring relational differential equations and the resulting mathematically measurable patterns from E =Mc^2 to Pi.

    I am basically a reductionist who does not believe in "irreducible complexity". This Universe had to start from "nothing" somehwen (13 bil. yr) in our past, no?

    IMO, what came before the singular BB is untestable and irrelevant. Is there a more definitive answer ?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 30, 2024
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Irreducible complexity is a term from the biological pseudoscience of “Intelligent Design”. It has no meaning in cosmology.
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    • Please try to stay on topic.
    Does it matter ? The Universe did not exist until it emerged. From where is beyond our ability to know and/or verify.
    Why not? Because no one has proposed it?
    Behe's ID was used in context of the flagellar motor during the Kitzmiller trial, but it referred to the intentional creation of the universe and humans as irreducibly complex patterns by an intelligent designer.

    This "belief system" was debunked during the trial. Today, we are beginning to understand interactive mechanics at nanoscales.
    (See my recently closed thread on microtubules.) This is what I presented as a "quasi-intelligent" system.

    I believe this describes the actual situation.

    The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design

    No irreducible complexity.

    If the BB was a mega-quantum event releasing all its energy in a single burst, that could not be considered a "designed event", but it would be an irreducible complex system from the start. . It would be chaotic, no?

    Complexity and Chaos

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 1. This image is related to the Mandelbrot set, a complex mathematical form that is chaotic. The patterns are infinitely fine as you look closer and closer, and they indicate order in the presence of chaos. (credit: Gilberto Santa Rosa)

    Question: Is the Mandelbrot set an irreducibly complex system derived from the iteration of a simple triangle?

    Does the Mandelbrot set exist in nature?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 2. The Great Red Spot on Jupiter is an example of self-organization in a complex and chaotic system. Smaller vortices in Jupiter’s atmosphere behave chaotically, but the triple-Earth-size spot is self-organized and stable for at least hundreds of years. (credit: NASA)

    p.s. I believe that the formation of the human brain was not a gradual evolutionary process as with other great apes, but an accidental mutation, fusing 2 separate chromosomes into 1 double sized single chromosome #2. But that was a chance event resulting in a beneficial "mutation".

    I believe that can be compared with the fact that of all the apes only humans have 1 less chromosome and may well be causal to extraordinary complex brain growth (as compared to other apes) and ability for abstract thought and making predictions (educated guesses).
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2024
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    ................Meanwhile, back on the thread topic....................

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I was intrigued to see this Gupta guy is trying to resuscitate the tired light hypothesis. But it doesn't look as if he has dealt with the standard objections to the idea (blurring etc), so I'm not sure why anyone would take him very seriously.
    Pinball1970 likes this.

Share This Page