Galaxy cluster X-ray discovery scores another win for the Big Bang theory

[Admin]

Scientists have found that the distribution of matter in galactic clusters supports the lambda cold dark matter model of cosmology.

Galaxy cluster X-ray discovery scores another win for the Big Bang theory : Read more

 

[rod]

I am not so sure about the win here. Redshifts are used but the range is not stated like z=1 to 10 or whatever. All galaxy models using redshifts come with the comoving radial distances too, something not shown in the simulations. Do the galaxies evolve along their comoving radial distances too, just like the simulations for comparing look back time distances? There is no way to observe this evolution if it takes place. The space.com article did mention inflation and its importance.

"As the infant universe underwent a period of rapid expansion called inflation, small perturbations spread through the plasma as a sound wave, producing under- and over-densities of both matter and radiation, but not affecting dark matter."

Comments like this seem to have problems now because inflation creates primordial black holes.

Primordial black holes may have 'frozen' the early universe, https://phys.org/news/2023-04-primordial-black-holes-frozen-early.html

Ref - Primordial Black Holes Place the Universe in Stasis, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01369, 29-March-2023.

My notes. From the 25-page PDF report cited by phys.org article, "I. INTRODUCTION In a broad class of inflationary scenarios, a population of black holes (BHs) is generated shortly after inflation as a consequence of the gravitational collapse of primordial density fluctuations. Such primordial black holes (PBHs) have received a significant amount of recent attention, in part because they can potentially provide a solution to the dark-matter problem. Indeed, while black holes evaporate over time as a consequence of Hawking radiation [1, 2], PBHs with masses M ~> 10^15 g would nevertheless have lifetimes longer than the age of the universe. Indeed, a population of PBHs with masses within the range 10^17 g <~ M <~ 10^23 g can potentially account for the entirety of the present-day dark-matter abundance, even when the spectrum of PBHs is approximately monochromatic (for reviews, see, e.g., Refs. [3-6]). PBHs with lower masses can also have implications for cosmology. Indeed, PBHs with masses in the range 10^9 g <~ M <~ 10^14 g evaporate at a significant rate during or after Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), generating energetic particles which can modify the primordial abundances of light nuclei. As a result, the abundance of PBHs with masses in this range is tightly constrained [4, 7, 8]." [My note. Inflation with PBHs apparently creates more constraints for the BB model, production of H, He, and perhaps a little Li too as well as DM creation. Is this another fine-tuning problem in cosmology using exotic physics, not seen operating in the universe today to explain how we evolved naturally?

Question. Does this new simulation for how galaxies evolved over billions of years state clearly how dark matter evolved too? PBH evolution may be an additional headache here

 

[Helio]

I am not so sure about the win here. Redshifts are used but the range is not stated like z=1 to 10 or whatever.

The article doesn't state the redshift that was reached, surprisingly, but it is in the cool illustration caption...
"The newly discovered galaxy GN-z11 is the most distant galaxy discovered so far, at a redshift of 11.1, which corresponds to 400 million years after the Big Bang."

We have seen from the JSWT some greater distances, but this study seems to be an attempt to verify the galaxy formation model using the current BBT. The report is that observing what was emitted as x-rays, I assume, helped allow the astronomers to see those formations, and affirm the modeling.

Comments like this seem to have problems now because inflation creates primordial black holes.

That is, I assume, just a theory, or two. I doubt technology has come along to confirm these ideas, or am I wrong? They aren't critical to BBT in any way that I'm aware. There is no difference in gravity for the surrounding area when comparing gravity densities. If the Sun were to magically turn into a black hole, it's gravitational influence will not change even a tiny bit. But, if you get really, really close to it, be careful.

Their point about Inflation is simply to help explain how higher density regions allow the formation of galaxies, which is key to the modeling. Because of their focus on galaxy formations, the CMBR gives them what they need. Inflation models aren't needed to explain those anisotropies, only that the anisotropies exist and are measurable.

Question. Does this new simulation for how galaxies evolved over billions of years state clearly how dark matter evolved too?

AFAIK, no BBT model, especially for galaxy formation will ignore DM, it is required in BBT.

 

[rod]

Some points here Helio about your post #3. The galaxy simulations use only the look back time distances from Earth and do not say anything about what happened to those galaxies using their comoving radial distances that GR requires for expanding space (something not seen from Earth today). The model used for DM (LCDM) does not define just how DM is created (or how much is available for continued galaxy evolution using look back distances and not comoving radial distances which we do not see).

Helio you said, "AFAIK, no BBT model, especially for galaxy formation will ignore DM, it is required in BBT."

*it is required in BBT* is not accurate. DM never predicted in BBT even during the days of George Gamow and Ralphe Alpher so DM is not required for BBT. DM is an add on to BBT because of other observations used to claim DM fills our universe, this is just an add on here to BBT now where BBT math becomes flexible to accommodate DM observation claims. BBT does not explain the origin of DM or when DM appears or how much DM appears. The article on PBHs start to define this problem in BBT now in my opinion pointing back to inflation and what happens to different densities assumed in the *early universe* using the new, exotic physics not observed operating in nature today.

 

[rod]

In my opinion, the items I called attention to about this article by space.com, biases the simulation report to support BBT more robustly then perhaps it really does.

 

[Helio]

The model used for DM (LCDM) does not define just how DM is created (or how much is available for continued galaxy evolution using look back distances and not comoving radial distances which we do not see).

Modern BBT doesn’t try to argue how DM was created. It only must recognize its influence with normal matter, which it does. Newton never had to explain how gravity was created to have his theory honored. All theories are limited in scope. They each serve a specific area of science. The TOE (Theory of Everything) may be the one exception, but even this, if discovered, will not explain how all the initial circumstances took place at t=0.

*it is required in BBT* is not accurate. DM never predicted in BBT even during the days of George Gamow and Ralphe Alpher so DM is not required for BBT.

Mainstream cosmology incorporates DM. It isn’t trivial and modern BBT includes. Mainstream BBT is the LCDM model, as you’ve already stated, and we both know what the “DM” stands for?

Gamow and Alpher did not know about DM at the time. That began to surface after Vera Rubin’s work in the 60’s, followed by others. Zwicky was first, decades earlier, but the evidence was not solid in favor of one hypothesis over another, especially given ideas to explain-away redshift observations.

The article on PBHs start to define this problem in BBT now in my opinion pointing back to inflation and what happens to different densities assumed in the *early universe* using the new, exotic physics not observed operating in nature today.

BBT is mainstream not for it’s ability to be like a TOE, but for the huge ability to explain the observations we currently see. Recall that theories can only be falsified, and there is no clear objective evidence that does this against BBT. Suppositions and hand-waving by some are like throwing rocks at a tank.

Galileo’s discovery of both crescent and gibbous phases for Venus was powerful and clear evidence against the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas model that even the Jesuits quickly agreed. Nothing comes close against modern BBT, though it would be nice if it had some real competition. Others tried, but real evidence showed their models were false, so they were shipped off to either Sillyville or Obscurityville.

 

[rod]

Modern BBT doesn’t try to argue how DM was created. It only must recognize its influence with normal matter, which it does. Newton never had to explain how gravity was created to have his theory honored. All theories are limited in scope. They each serve a specific area of science. The TOE (Theory of Everything) may be the one exception, but even this, if discovered, will not explain how all the initial circumstances took place at t=0.

Mainstream cosmology incorporates DM. It isn’t trivial and modern BBT includes. Mainstream BBT is the LCDM model, as you’ve already stated, and we both know what the “DM” stands for?

Gamow and Alpher did not know about DM at the time. That began to surface after Vera Rubin’s work in the 60’s, followed by others. Zwicky was first, decades earlier, but the evidence was not solid in favor of one hypothesis over another, especially given ideas to explain-away redshift observations.

BBT is mainstream not for it’s ability to be like a TOE, but for the huge ability to explain the observations we currently see. Recall that theories can only be falsified, and there is no clear objective evidence that does this against BBT. Suppositions and hand-waving by some are like throwing rocks at a tank.

Galileo’s discovery of both crescent and gibbous phases for Venus was powerful and clear evidence against the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas model that even the Jesuits quickly agreed. Nothing comes close against modern BBT, though it would be nice if it had some real competition. Others tried, but real evidence showed their models were false, so they were shipped off to either Sillyville or Obscurityville.

"BBT is mainstream not for it’s ability to be like a TOE, but for the huge ability to explain the observations we currently see."

That is important and why the look back time distances are used and the comoving radial distances in GR expanding space is ignored. In my view, this is a bias in the model.

 

[rod]

"Modern BBT doesn’t try to argue how DM was created. It only must recognize its influence with normal matter, which it does."

Helio is correct. DM is not explained concerning its origin or even when DM appears or how much DM appears in BBT, saying that DM is "incorporates DM" into BBT today is the same as what I said, it is an add on to the math and modeling. There is no way to know if DM really fits with BBT because BBT makes no specific predictions for its origin or abundance like BBN part of BBT does for H, He, and perhaps a little Li. As a result, there can never be a falsification it seems. We do not know if BBT created 1 gram of DM before the CMBR formed or what. *Incorporated* is a good description but not something required. Without DM, BBT does not form any structure in the universe just using normal matter. It should be obvious, that the wrong amount of DM emerging in the early universe, like the cosmological constant, can blow the universe up

 

[rod]

The cosmology calculators use default values for omega and dark energy. You can freely change those values but get different results too. GR expanding space does not require DM or DE to work. Incorporating DM into GR metric for expanding space makes things dicey and entertaining like the cosmological constant.

 

[rod]

Helio, in your post #6, "Galileo’s discovery of both crescent and gibbous phases for Venus was powerful and clear evidence against the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas model that even the Jesuits quickly agreed."

I agree, I looked at Venus with my telescope the other night (13-April-2023) and could see its gibbous shape at 73% illumination and angular size about 15 arcseconds near an 8th magnitude star about 275 light-years away (HIP18833). These changes in Venus are very obvious and visible. BBT is not as good in my opinion as the astronomy of the heliocentric solar system debates even though many apparently believe this. In your post #3, "The article doesn't state the redshift that was reached, surprisingly, but it is in the cool illustration caption..."The newly discovered galaxy GN-z11 is the most distant galaxy discovered so far, at a redshift of 11.1, which corresponds to 400 million years after the Big Bang."

GNz-11 is a good example that is not the same as observing Venus's phase changes or angular size changes. What we observe is the redshift of about 11.1, interpreted look back time distance using GR and SR, about 13.308 Gly. What we do not see, is what this object looks like today at its comoving radial distance from Earth, that is somewhat more than 32 Gly away from Earth today. I do not know what happened to GNz-11 as the universe is assumed to expand for billions of more years after its origin in BBT. GNz-11 sits in space expanding faster than c velocity today (something I do not see), or even if DM is there in it or even if GNz-11 still exists in the universe. That is very different than seeing the phases of Venus which are easily verified.

 

[Helio]

That is important and why the look back time distances are used and the comoving radial distances in GR expanding space is ignored. In my view, this is a bias in the model.

The complexity and awkwardness in describing expanding space, and with time, doesn’t change the fact that GR is the basis to BBT. Lemaitre was first to see this, hence he’s the father of it. It started with more local redshifts that demonstrated, somewhat loosely, that space itself is expanding, as is implied within GR. Cosmologists have been tweaking and including both DM and DE to better explain observations.

 

[Helio]

GNz-11 is a good example that is not the same as observing Venus's phase changes or angular size changes. What we observe is the redshift of about 11.1, interpreted look back time distance using GR and SR, about 13.308 Gly. What we do not see, is what this object looks like today at its comoving radial distance from Earth, that is somewhat more than 32 Gly away from Earth today. I do not know what happened to GNz-11 as the universe is assumed to expand for billions of more years after its origin in BBT. GNz-11 sits in space expanding faster than c velocity today (something I do not see), or even if DM is there in it or even if GNz-11 still exists in the universe. That is very different than seeing the phases of Venus which are easily verified.

Agreed. Galileo had only a little evidence for falsifying the old model, but what he lacked in volume, he had in quality. The better and bigger his telescopes became, the more others agreed with him.

Galileo, however, was wrong to claim he had proved that the Copernicus’ model was correct. He also rejected elliptical orbits from Kepler, so Cop’s model was falsifiable and not more accurate than Ptolemy’s model. Like the incorporation of Kepler’s laws to the Copernican model,, DM and DE have improved the accuracy of BBT.

 

[bibhutibhusanpatel@gmail.]

The fact that in clustre of galaxies the concentration towards center is higher for low galaxy mass than for galaxy mass is high.This aspect is even viewed when phenomena is visualised from rotation of a galaxy with respect to others in time axis.

 

[bibhutibhusanpatel@gmail.]

The galaxy cluster as a common principle,can have higher concentration towrds the center when indivisual galaxy mass is lower than for higher indivisual galaxy mass.This can be explained by the rotation of a galaxy with respect to others in time axis.

 

[Helio]

The fact that in clustre of galaxies the concentration towards center is higher for low galaxy mass than for galaxy mass is high.This aspect is even viewed when phenomena is visualised from rotation of a galaxy with respect to others in time axis.

Interesting. It makes sense because fewer galaxies in a cluster will have a lower total mass, hence they would need to be orbiting tighter with one another else they would leave the cluster. Perhaps the earlier smaller clusters had more but the outer ones flung free.