Galaxies in early universe were surprisingly diverse, James Webb Space Telescope finds

Jan 16, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
May it not be just possible that the diverse aggregation of galaxies so far observed in the epoch of 11 to 13 billion light-yea rs may suggest ( just a suggestion ! ) that the concept of the 'Big Bang' theory that scientists and philosophers have been operating under for the last, what century (?), may ( and I repeat, just may ) need to be reexamined and modified with the possibility in mind that our 'universe' may be only a part of a larger, and more complex, universe ( or verses ) ? ? ?
 
Jan 16, 2023
6
1
10
Visit site
Galaxies are well developed at great distances.

The ratio of spiral and elliptical galaxies at great distances is the same as we observe close up. (Spiral are supposed to evolve from elliptical).

Elements that weren’t predicted to have evolved yet at great distances are soon to be found I’m sure. Looking forward to that one.

I’m kinda thinking a bigger telescope isn’t gonna solve these issues for the big bang model.
 
Jan 16, 2023
6
1
10
Visit site
Yes it makes sense. Maybe the universe is much larger than imagined. Maybe it isn’t dense anywhere in the great, great distance and the Big Bang model is wrong. This one is like chasing a rainbow.
 
A variety of recent reports about JWST galaxies observed are now out. Here is an example for some.







As studies continue using JWST, it should be very interesting to see how the BB cosmology is *tweaked* to explain the new observations. Tweaking can be good, but also a method used to avoid falsification of a model in science too.
 
The duration of inflation was set to agree with the lumpiness of the universe at the earliest time we could see it. Now that we have earlier data showing more lumpiness, we must simply reduce the amount of inflation in our model. It does not falsify the model, it simply calls for a change to one of the parameters.

We know what Planck's Constant is. We know what the Heisenberg Uncertainty is. At the instant of the Big Bang, there had to be a certain amount of lumpiness to the universe due to quantum fluctuations as predicted by Planck and Heisenberg. As the universe got bigger, the lumpiness spread out and became less. We simply tailor the amount of expansion in our model to the observed amount of lumpiness as far back as we can see.

This is the Lambda - Cold Dark Matter model. There are other models, including the Steady State model. None of them explain the observations better than Lamda-CDM.
 
From Helio on June 15, 2020:
In the Cosmology section, "What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?" - Post #4.

"I would expect any alternative theory that better fit the observations would become accepted. Here are some things the alternative theory would need to address:

The Expansion of the Universe.
....> Hubble Constant (redshift)
....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
....> Time Dilation of Supernova
....> Gamma Ray Bursts
....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
...…......> The wavelength (microwave)
......…...> The Temperature (2.73K).
......…...> The Blackbody Results.
......…...> The "smoothness" (isotropy) [Inflation required]
...……...> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation.
......…...> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
......…...> The power spectrum
....> Distant Cloud temperatures
....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
....> Helium (25%)
....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
......…..> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
......…..> Less organized distant Spirals.
......…..> No local Quasars.
....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
....> Olber's Paradox resolved.
....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
....> The Lyman Forest morphology "
 
A problem I see in post #9 and #10, we have repetition of the probability creation story using constants like the Planck constant to describe the origin of the universe and hold BB cosmology together or somehow, inflation will be modified to accomodate the new JWST observations. None of current physical law or constants used in science are explained by the probability creation story told the public, how they were created. The BB model does not explain the origin of DM or DE either.









 
Can you define "probability creation story", it doesn't come up on google.

The Lambca-CDM model is simply a description of what we see. As we see more, the model changes. Nothing wrong with that.

Please explain your argument in your own words. I am not going to wade through 9 external references to try and understand what you are saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and rod
Can you define "probability creation story", it doesn't come up on google.

The Lambca-CDM model is simply a description of what we see. As we see more, the model changes. Nothing wrong with that.

Please explain your argument in your own words. I am not going to wade through 9 external references to try and understand what you are saying.

This explains quite a bit about using constants found in nature to describe the origin of everything we see today including DM that has no origin explanation or just how much DM is created at the beginning of the universe. There is no explanation here as to how the constants used in science, were created by BB cosmology or how DM appears in the correct amount, so as not to destroy the universe. Right at the start of the universe, the constant G and lambda, used for the vacuum energy density must be very special and tight, otherwise the universe is destroyed, and I would add the amount of DM does this too if not the correct amount of DM. That is a fine-tuning problem in cosmology and the origin answer in science indicates that is how random events work in nature, thus the probability creation story. Even the Planck constant has no explanation using random events in nature as to how it evolved into the Planck constant underling physics today.

billslugg, you did wade through those 9 references already :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classical Motion
I have no problem with a model that is constrained to very narrow values of the constants. Any other universe would have self destructed. We happen to be in one that hit the sweet spots just right.

The fact that the BB Theory cannot explain the constants used to describe it does not falsify the BB Theory it simply indicates it is not yet complete.

I am tired of wading through external references trying to discern an argument. Put your argument here and add references in case someone wants to see what your argument is based on.

:)
 
I have no problem with a model that is constrained to very narrow values of the constants. Any other universe would have self destructed. We happen to be in one that hit the sweet spots just right.

The fact that the BB Theory cannot explain the constants used to describe it does not falsify the BB Theory it simply indicates it is not yet complete.

I am tired of wading through external references trying to discern an argument. Put your argument here and add references in case someone wants to see what your argument is based on.

:)
"We happen to be in one that hit the sweet spots just right."

My observation. This is an excellent example of the probability creation story being told to the public concerning origins. It opens the door to other universes that are very different than the universe we find ourselves in to avoid any fine-tuning problems pointing to a beginning that is not explained by natural, random events.
 
Getting back to the article reported here, the reference link cited by space.com: CEERS Key Paper IV: The Diversity of Galaxy Structure and Morphology at z = 3 − 9 with JWST, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.14713.pdf, 26-Oct-2022, 22-page PDF report.

Using cosmology calculators shows what measurement changes are used for z=9 for example. Look back distance or light time distance to Earth is 13.170 Gly. Comoving radial distance 30.720 Gly so 4D space is expanding about 2.136 x c velocity using H0=69 km/s/Mpc. Validating BB cosmology teaching like this remains unverified too it seems when explaining these large redshifts. What I see in the JWST reports coming out, current BB cosmology is running into problems explaining the galaxies JWST is reporting now, with redshifts in the 3-9 and larger ranges like 13 or so. While the observations do not necessarily overthrow the BB model, it does disclose the paradigm has more problems than commonly admitted.
 
Yes, JWST has proven the current Lamba-CDM parameters to be lacking in their ability to explain the observed high red shift galaxy morphology. We simply change our parameters to fall into line with observation. There is nothing wrong with "fine tuning". It is simply "continuous improvement". If we find NO combination of tuning parameters that are consistent then we must throw the entire theory out but until then we go with a new, modified theory.

There is nothing wrong with a theory having "problems". We simply go with whatever theory has the fewest, ala Occam's Razor.
 
Greetings! billslugg and rod
My paper expected in the next 2-3 months will explain how DM converts to matter-energy ME
(including QCD BEC or whatever else as described by Harry Costas etc. )
One needs no Big Bang.
Even though we have so far studied DM influence in galaxies and gravitational lensing largely, it is not easy to fathom the expanse of DM it is beyond where we see ME.
Your dialog is for proving or disproving BB and it is not clear how DM arguments are related to BB, probably there is only local BB at the cosmology scale local regions and not for the whole Universe!
Regards,
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
 
Congratulations on your upcoming paper. I look forward to reading it.

If you want to offer an alternate to the Big Bang, you must address each one of the 27 points in post #10 in this thread.
Primary among them is the fact that we can see the Big Bang's fireball as it was at t=380,000 years when we look at the CMB.
I can literally see something and you are telling me it is not there. You want me to believe you or my own eyes?
 
Greetings!
billsugg
There could be three ways to the truth - direct as you see it, postulate (logic), and as experience by the Great which gets verified by common people later (for example GR is now better understood!).
But one does not "see" t=380,000 years. one conjectures "t" based on a model (including the wavelength shift with velocity!) hence how do you convince others that there are no other (e.g. ergodic) hypotheses to what one sees in the CMB other than BB. Then there are anisotropies in the CMBR and no unique fit can be ascribed, by axions or other theories?
Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
 
Greetings!
billsugg
There could be three ways to the truth - direct as you see it, postulate (logic), and as experience by the Great which gets verified by common people later (for example GR is now better understood!).
But one does not "see" t=380,000 years. one conjectures "t" based on a model (including the wavelength shift with velocity!) hence how do you convince others that there are no other (e.g. ergodic) hypotheses to what one sees in the CMB other than BB. Then there are anisotropies in the CMBR and no unique fit can be ascribed, by axions or other theories?
Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
"But one does not "see" t=380,000 years. one conjectures "t" based on a model (including the wavelength shift with velocity!)"

I think this looks important :) when explaining the origin of the CMBR and nearly uniform 3K background glow in the sky. My own calculations using H0 (67 or 69 km/s/Mpc) indicate that in the BB model, the universe is at least as small as an electron or smaller (e.g., inflation) and then expands in 380,000 years to a radius size about 40-41 million light years (using the cosmology calculators). This shows 4D space in the BB model expands faster than 100 x c velocity when the CMBR becomes visible light. I do not think George Gamow or Ralph Alpher made such predictions to show a warm background glow left over from the early, hot dense universe postulate where 4D space expands so fast. If this is correct, and it sure looks correct, I would think such an explanation would come with some caveats when presenting the BB model answer to the origin of the CMBR observed today.
 
Greetings!
billsugg
But one does not "see" t=380,000 years.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

Yes, one does. I have in my study an old analog TV set. When I turn it on and place it on an empty channel all I can see is static left over from the Big Bang.

Reference: TV Static Comes From a Surprising Source... The Big Bang | High-Def Digest (highdefdigest.com)

Any substitute for BB Theory must account for a universe filled with 3°K photons at a redshift of z ~ 3000.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Yes, one does. I have in my study an old analog TV set. When I turn it on and place it on an empty channel all I can see is static left over from the Big Bang.

Reference: TV Static Comes From a Surprising Source... The Big Bang | High-Def Digest (highdefdigest.com)

Any substitute for BB Theory must account for a universe filled with 3°K photons at a redshift of z ~ 3000.
billslugg, very clever here :)

I note from the source you provided about TV static: "So, basically, light has been traveling for billions of years across countless solar systems and vast oceans of stars to screw up your TV reception right before the game winning touchdown. Thankfully, modern digital displays, antennas, and cable receivers don't really have to deal with static anymore, but it might be worth busting out that old tube TV again just to catch a small peek back into the creation of the universe. "

The BB model explanation for the CMBR today does need a good answer if another cosmology model is to replace the BB cosmology. However, there are obvious caveats that are not provided to the public too concerning the BB model explanation for the CMBR.

1. Space expands more than 100x c velocity before the CMBR becomes visible light in the universe (thus a universe about 40-41 million light year radius when the universe starts out the size or smaller than an electron). The postulated redshift for the CMBR today is not z ~ 3,000 (perhaps original CMB temperature 3000 K when it became light) but z ~ 1100 today in the BB model. Such a redshift has no spectroscopic measurement verifying this extrapolation like the Lyman break method followed up by spectroscopic examination (something done for JWST galaxy redshift reports). 4D space comoving radial distance requires the CMB is now some 46 billion light years radius from Earth, another caveat (seen using the cosmology calculators). At that distance, 4D space is expanding faster than 3x c velocity using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc or 67 km/s/Mpc.

The BB cosmology presents a good model dependent interpretation for the CMBR and its origin, however, there are areas in the paradigm that are untested, like some of the caveats I mention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Yes, my source says 1090, I don't know why I put it down as 3000.
With no Lyman Break to use in the calculation it may be that they simply take the assumed temperature of recombination and work it out that way.

Any alternate model must account for the fact that, a very long time ago there was a very bright flash of light.
 
My observation. This is an excellent example of the probability creation story being told to the public concerning origins. It opens the door to other universes that are very different than the universe we find ourselves in to avoid any fine-tuning problems pointing to a beginning that is not explained by natural, random events.
That's true, but we need to be mindful that such supposition is without objective evidence. There can be a big difference between math and physics. Applying quantum mechanics to the landscape of String theory may produce a large number of different universes on paper, but good luck finding one. :)

If we can ever figure out the universe that we're in, it would be amazing. It's already amazing how far we've come.
 

Latest posts