No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.

[Admin]

Researchers confirmed that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know. : Read more

 

[Helio]

“... finding galaxies in the incredibly young universe is a point in favor of the Big Bang theory, not against it.”

BBT gets a little stronger, not weaker.

I’m curious about many things about these galaxies now that we can observe thes young galaxies. Here are just two:

1) Are the stars mostly Pop II or Pop I stars?

2) Even though their number of stars are fewer, should we not be seeing a much greater number of SN (Type II)? This might help determine distance better, though their absolute brightness may be hard to determine.

 

[rod]

The source cited in the space.com report is https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12804, "with four galaxies found with redshifts between z=10.38 and z=13.2."

Interesting. What happens to galaxy morphology and size at z = 20?

Here is another view on these galaxies JWST is finding at large redshifts.

Astronomers suggest more galaxies were formed in the early universe than previously thought, https://phys.org/news/2023-01-astronomers-galaxies-early-universe-previously.html

Edit: One report apparently used 4 galaxies. the phys.org report indicates 87 were used

"In a new study, a team of astronomers led by Haojing Yan at the University of Missouri used data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Early Release Observations and discovered 87 galaxies that could be the earliest known galaxies in the universe."

 

[rod]

I note here the conclusion of the arxiv.org paper. "In general, we find that each of these simulations produces galaxies with comparable stellar masses to the JADES galaxies by z ~ 10. The most massive JADES galaxies have somewhat lower SFRs than simulated galaxies at z ~ 10, but lie within the scatter of the simulations. The galaxy number density implied by the JADES galaxies at z ~ 10 is consistent with both the simulations and past observations. At higher redshift, only Simba and OBELISK produce galaxies as massive as are found in JADES. The number density of galaxies inferred from JADES is slightly larger than what is predicted by Simba at z = 11 and z = 12, but at a low level of significance. Overall, there appears to be no strong tension between models for galaxy formation in cosmological hydrodynamic simulations and the most distant spectroscopically confirmed
galaxies."

Okay, the conclusion paints a rosy picture for the BB model and early galaxy formation, using simulations. Time will tell here.

 

[rod]

“... finding galaxies in the incredibly young universe is a point in favor of the Big Bang theory, not against it.”

BBT gets a little stronger, not weaker.

I’m curious about many things about these galaxies now that we can observe thes young galaxies. Here are just two:

1) Are the stars mostly Pop II or Pop I stars?

2) Even though their number of stars are fewer, should we not be seeing a much greater number of SN (Type II)? This might help determine distance better, though their absolute brightness may be hard to determine.

Helio, interesting questions. You and I have discussed already that to see the original, pristine gas clouds said to be created during BBN, we would need to look back to z~1100. This report seems focused on galaxies in the z~10 or so range, perhaps a small number a bit larger redshift. Running a simulation from original gas clouds at z=1100 and evolve the universe to z=10, could prove intriguing

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over."

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.

 

[rod]

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over."

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.

"Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over."

Pentcho Valev, very interesting here. I used this cosmology calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html

Using defaults with z=1100, the universe radius about 41 million light years when the CMBR appears as light and the original pristine gas clouds continue their cosmic evolution into galaxies later. The space.com report is about simulations for galaxies mostly near z=10. The universe age then is just less than 500 million years old and radius close to 2.9 billion light years. It is not difficult to see that space expands close to 6x c velocity while the galaxies do not expand like this "Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies"

This makes my head hurt

 

[rod]

FYI. This looks like the full quote with context from Sabine Hossenfelder. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html, Tuesday, August 15, 2017, "This is a key point and missing it is origin of much confusion about the expansion of the universe: The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different – and just don’t expand. It’s not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don’t. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies. (Though these solutions are usually only dealt with by computer simulations due to their mathematical complexity.)"

 

[Helio]

Okay, the conclusion paints a rosy picture for the BB model and early galaxy formation, using simulations. Time will tell here.

Agreed, but there is hope we will see a "little something to exciting the astronomers" . The JWST was designed to see take us to distances never observed before. There is bound to be a little something different to tweak all those model coefficients, etc. There's still that HL Constant variation you've brought up before. Perhaps that will get explained with better data.

 

[Helio]

Helio, interesting questions. You and I have discussed already that to see the original, pristine gas clouds said to be created during BBN, we would need to look back to z~1100. This report seems focused on galaxies in the z~10 or so range, perhaps a small number a bit larger redshift. Running a simulation from original gas clouds at z=1100 and evolve the universe to z=10, could prove intriguing

At z=1100, there will be too little in the way of real cloud formation. It took a lot of time for the tiny anisotropic density regions to become cloud-like. I have no idea what redshift would be appropriate for these, admittedly.

There are still a lot of questions, at least from me, about those early periods. We know, or logically assume, in our local galaxies, that things like S/N, or supersonic internal or external flows, in GMCs will trigger cloud fragmentation into lots of stars.

But what "triggers" those first star formations? Clouds become a little heated when they try to collapse, then they, in turn, expand. Something more is needed. Perhaps there are some solid answers out there already, but I have forgotten them or I've missed them.

 

[mcswell]

Time will tell here.

Wait, 14 billion years isn't enough?

 

[rod]

At z=1100, there will be too little in the way of real cloud formation. It took a lot of time for the tiny anisotropic density regions to become cloud-like. I have no idea what redshift would be appropriate for these, admittedly.

There are still a lot of questions, at least from me, about those early periods. We know, or logically assume, in our local galaxies, that things like S/N, or supersonic internal or external flows, in GMCs will trigger cloud fragmentation into lots of stars.

But what "triggers" those first star formations? Clouds become a little heated when they try to collapse, then they, in turn, expand. Something more is needed. Perhaps there are some solid answers out there already, but I have forgotten them or I've missed them.

Helio, some interesting questions and GMC mention. The star formation process used for z=1100 until z=10 and I would think z=3.0 or so, will be very different than what we see like in M42 in Orion. Just how detailed the computer simulations are for z 1100 until 10 and perhaps 3, I do not know. I did read this star formation report this morning.

Molecular clouds extend their lives by constantly reassembling themselves, say astronomers, https://phys.org/news/2023-01-molecular-clouds-constantly-reassembling-astronomers.html

ref - Clouds of Theseus: long-lived molecular clouds are composed of short-lived H2 molecules, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10251, 24-Jan-2023.

My observation. The arxiv.org report indicates host molecular cloud lifetimes range 1-90 Myr so the upper limit or max age is about 90 Myr for a GMC type gas cloud. Other reports I have in my home database suggested perhaps 30 Myr. Consider the age of the Universe using Hubble time, 13.8 Gyr and the age of the Milky Way galaxy with globular clusters dated some 12 Gyr or older. Star formation to proceed in our galaxy would require just how many GMC and molecular clouds to be recreated with max lifetimes now about 90 Myr? I enjoy views of M42 in Orion using my telescopes. How many M42s evolved in the galaxy since its origin and then lasted perhaps 90 Myr, creating new stars?

Digging into star formation and galaxy formation for the period z=1100 until 10 and perhaps 3 in the BB cosmology, I suspect is challenging

 

[bwana4swahili]

Researchers confirmed that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know. : Read more

With an expanding universe at some point the universe will be expanding beyond the speed of light and nothing will be visible beyond that point. It is quite possible the universe is considerably larger than we think it is.

 

[rod]

With an expanding universe at some point the universe will be expanding beyond the speed of light and nothing will be visible beyond that point. It is quite possible the universe is considerably larger than we think it is.

Yes, all redshifts of 1.4 or larger, the comoving radial distances show 4D space expanding faster than c velocity. Cosmology calculators will show this. Using H0=67 km/s/Mpc and the comoving radial distance where the CMBR is z=1100, 4D space way out there must be expanding at least 3x faster or more than c velocity. Starting the Universe at inflation epoch where size is perhaps that of an electron or smaller, when the CMBR becomes visible light about 380,000 after BB, 4D space must expand more than 100 x c velocity - to get there

How science tested and showed 4D space expands faster than c velocity is something I have not read.

 

[Helio]

Yes, all redshifts of 1.4 or larger, the comoving radial distances show 4D space expanding faster than c velocity. Cosmology calculators will show this. Using H0=67 km/s/Mpc and the comoving radial distance where the CMBR is z=1100, 4D space way out there must be expanding at least 3x faster or more than c velocity. Starting the Universe at inflation epoch where size is perhaps that of an electron or smaller, when the CMBR becomes visible light about 380,000 after BB, 4D space must expand more than 100 x c velocity - to get there

Yes, this is one of the many novelty topics that make astronomy so interesting. We are able to see objects that were traveling faster than light at the time of emission. The space between us and the FTL source is expanding at a slower and slower speed. As the emissions moves move into these slower regions, they will continue to work their way to us.

How science tested and showed 4D space expands faster than c velocity is something I have not read.

This is integral to BBT since the expansion rate takes those regions to be faster than light, as seen in their redshifts and other objective measurements.

 

[rod]

Yes, this is one of the many novelty topics that make astronomy so interesting. We are able to see objects that were traveling faster than light at the time of emission. The space between us and the FTL source is expanding at a slower and slower speed. As the emissions moves move into these slower regions, they will continue to work their way to us.

This is integral to BBT since the expansion rate takes those regions to be faster than light, as seen in their redshifts and other objective measurements.

"This is integral to BBT since the expansion rate takes those regions to be faster than light, as seen in their redshifts and other objective measurements."

And if I remember my George Abell astronomy text from some 50 years ago, when redshifts 1.0 or larger encountered, objects themselves like galaxies would be moving away from Earth faster than light speed So, some math needed to be reworked here to avoid such a problem

 

[Helio]

"This is integral to BBT since the expansion rate takes those regions to be faster than light, as seen in their redshifts and other objective measurements."

And if I remember my George Abell astronomy text from some 50 years ago, when redshifts 1.0 or larger encountered, objects themselves like galaxies would be moving away from Earth faster than light speed So, some math needed to be reworked here to avoid such a problem

But what is the problem? Objects are being carried away with the expansion of space. GR strongly supports expansion, or contraction. This is what Lemaitre realized to explain Slipher's redshifts. Einstein acknowledged Freidmann's expansion, or contraction, mathematical solution to GR, but Einstein was convinced space was static, which is why he added his fudge force acting on space (i.e. Cosmological Constant).

If a swimmer can swim 5 mph, and a river flows at 10 mph, can the swimmer eventually move upstream relative to the land? Yes, but the swimmer has to move closer to the shore where the flow becomes less than 5 mph. This is a crude analogy, but light travels at one constant speed regardless of the motion of space, and once those photons eventually reach regions of space traveling < c, then it becomes more obvious why we can see light that came from regions that were traveling faster than light.

Of course, it takes time for those photons to reach us, so there are regions of space that we will never be able to see, and as space expands, more and more regions will be beyond our capable viewing.

There are a number of articles about this oddity, and likely a video or two.

[Added: here is the ant and rubber strip analogy.]

 

[rod]

But what is the problem? Objects are being carried away with the expansion of space. GR strongly supports expansion, or contraction. This is what Lemaitre realized to explain Slipher's redshifts. Einstein acknowledged Freidmann's expansion, or contraction, mathematical solution to GR, but Einstein was convinced space was static, which is why he added his fudge force acting on space (i.e. Cosmological Constant).

If a swimmer can swim 5 mph, and a river flows at 10 mph, can the swimmer eventually move upstream relative to the land? Yes, but the swimmer has to move closer to the shore where the flow becomes less than 5 mph. This is a crude analogy, but light travels at one constant speed regardless of the motion of space, and once those photons eventually reach regions of space traveling < c, then it becomes more obvious why we can see light that came from regions that were traveling faster than light.

Of course, it takes time for those photons to reach us, so there are regions of space that we will never be able to see, and as space expands, more and more regions will be beyond our capable viewing.

There are a number of articles about this oddity, and likely a video or two.

[Added: here is the ant and rubber strip analogy.]

"But what is the problem?"

What is the test that demonstrates 4D space expanded faster than 100 x c velocity when the CMBR appears as light (380,000 years after BB event due to radius of universe then and when it started (tiny)) and what test confirms that 4D space is presently expanding faster than 3x c velocity where the CMBR redshift z~1100, the comoving radial distance? Remember, this is an integral component needed to accept the cosmological redshift answers, including the CMBR redshift ~ 1100,

My other question Helio, when did the math change to allow 4D space expanding faster than c velocity in cosmology? Einstein did not say this.

 

[Helio]

"But what is the problem?"

What is the test that demonstrates 4D space expanded faster than 100 x c velocity when the CMBR appears as light (380,000 years after BB event due to radius of universe then and when it started (tiny))...

You're referring to Inflation theory that was added to BBT in order to explain several problems that arose in BBT once the CMBR was discovered, though homogeneity was assumed from the start. One doesn't have to stretch space in a lab to that extent to respect the basis for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't know enough about inflation to argue the pros and cons of it, unfortunately.

This is why I emphasize the idea of understanding BBT as it was first introduced by Lemaitre and others. The redshifts and GR combined to produce the theory. Inflation was only needed under extreme conditions when quantum forces dominated.

My other question Helio, when did the math change to allow 4D space expanding faster than c velocity in cosmology? Einstein did not say this.

GR argued for space being stretchable from day one. This is why light bends more when passing by a large mass. Einstein accepted the math that demonstrated an expanding space, but he refused, initially, to see it as something real. He later was convinced by others more interested in cosmology than he was, and he applauded Lemaitre.

BBT is about expanding space and there is no speed limit to it. The H-L constant does not go to a set distance then quit, so the speed of space, relative to us, can be faster than c. Otherwise, I doubt BBT would be considered valid, though the ton of evidence for it remains.

 

[rod]

Helio, in your post #19, you did answer here You said, "You're referring to Inflation theory that was added to BBT".

What I said about space expanding more than 100 x c velocity is post-inflation period, not inflation. This is apparent when using the cosmology calculators and showing the radius of the universe when the CMBR appears as light, 380,000 years after the postulated BB event. Because of H0 or as you refer to H-L constant, the radius of the universe will be some 40-42 million light years, that expanded immensely fast after inflation period. When inflation ends, the universe is not 40-42 million light year radius but much smaller and tiny. You need to use the cosmology calculators to show this. This is the math of GR that shows space expands but because space expands from a very small area - post-inflation to a radius some 40-42 million light years in 380,000 years, space is moving quite fast now during this period too You said, "The H-L constant does not go to a set distance then quit, so the speed of space, relative to us, can be faster than c."

Yes, however, the CMBR redshift of 1100 - *something we cannot measure via Lyman break or spectroscopy*, H0 requires 4D space to be expanding more than 3x c velocity at redshift 1100 - *again something we cannot observe or measure. *

So, testing faster than speed of light expansion of space in BBT and *demonstrating that nature really does* this - seems circular reasoning to me, IMO. I still see nothing where Einstein said H0 will show space expands faster than c velocity so cosmology will need to accept such concepts.

 

[rod]

Helio, in your post #19 I think you said something here very profound about H0 or H-L constant. "BBT is about expanding space and there is no speed limit to it. The H-L constant does not go to a set distance then quit, so the speed of space, relative to us, can be faster than c."

Thinking like this in BB cosmology opens the door that space can expand at an infinite velocity too relative to Earth (somewhere, way out there). There are no constraints here.

 

[San Juan Hill]

Per Space.com, The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

My question: Where did the infinitely hot, dense singularity come from? What was there before it? Seems Hawking had some questions in his last thoughts, per Stephen Hawking's Final Theory About The Big Bang (scitechdaily.com). How many other universes will we find when we get a better space telescope and find the edge of ours? Infinity IS hard to think about!

 

[rod]

Per Space.com, The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

My question: Where did the infinitely hot, dense singularity come from? What was there before it? Seems Hawking had some questions in his last thoughts, per Stephen Hawking's Final Theory About The Big Bang (scitechdaily.com). How many other universes will we find when we get a better space telescope and find the edge of ours? Infinity IS hard to think about!

The infinite singularity for the beginning of the universe using GR to describe expanding space is there when you extrapolate backwards. Now, it is apparent that GR expanding space leads to an infinite velocity for space expansion too, somewhere, far, far away from Earth. That is not hard to show using cosmology calculators. Using H0 = 67 km/s/Mpc, at 46 billion light years from Earth (comoving radial distance of CMBR redshift 1100), space is expanding somewhat faster than 3 x c velocity. Continue farther out from Earth, space is expanding millions of times the speed of light until you reach infinity. So, expanding space in GR results in an origin point of infinite singularity and a great distance from Earth today where space can expand millions of times the speed of light too. This is what I will call a very flexible expanding universe model

 

[Helio]

What I said about space expanding more than 100 x c velocity is post-inflation period, not inflation.

Yes, I should have caught that. The most distant regions are really expanding quickly, but only relative to us.

The objects themselves aren't moving that fast. The expansion is actually quite slow. It expands in free intergalactic space at only about 2x10^-15 mps for every km around you. [I think local gravity is a counter force to it, so that things like atoms don't expand over time.]

Yes, however, the CMBR redshift of 1100 - *something we cannot measure via Lyman break or spectroscopy*, H0 requires 4D space to be expanding more than 3x c velocity at redshift 1100 - *again something we cannot observe or measure. *

Yet observing the CMBR is an observation. So the question becomes what is the explanation for the redshift. This redshift can't be Doppler since, as you show, it would need to be able to handle faster than light redshifts, and Doppler can't do this. Hence, the cosmological redshift is the term used for it.

The studies of distant Type 1A S/N have produced strong argument for the H-L constant to explain the redshift found. But there are other methods that have been used to offer additional support.

Is there another, reasonable explanation for the redshift found at Recombination (CMBR)?

I still see nothing where Einstein said H0 will show space expands faster than c velocity so cosmology will need to accept such concepts.

But what would he have said if someone had asked him? Why would he object? The expansion during Inflation was incredibly faster than c, but this is only of space itself. Admittedly, it's hard to demonstrate Inflation speeds, so some will argue it is a bit too ad hoc, yet until something better explains the isotropy, it serves as a very plausible explanation. The key point I was making is that space is something that stretches, which is integral to GR.

 

[Helio]

Thinking like this in BB cosmology opens the door that space can expand at an infinite velocity too relative to Earth (somewhere, way out there). There are no constraints here.

That would require infinite space and that is contrary to my understanding of BBT. I keep thinking about the claims that, just after Inflation, the universe was about the size of a grapefruit (or beach ball from one source). It's hard enough for the mind to grasp the 90+ billion lyrs. diameter today.