The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
GR has been tested to 15 decimal places. With the great success of GPS accuracy, resolving Mercury’s orbit anomaly, solar redshift, etc. GR, though no theory should ever be considered proven, is probably as good as it gets, even if it gets tweaked at, say, 20 decimal places.

I don’t know why any scientist would not admit being dubious about any claims about any part of the earliest nanoseconds. Since the wagon wheels go flying-off when the laws of physics approach the first Planck sec., then I prefer to restrict BBT itself to moments thereafter, which were used to predict the well-confirmed CMBR.

The original model began with applying GR to today. Lemaitre introduced his suppisitional primeval atom idea to toss QM in the picture. since it is required, a few year later.

If I were to ever teach BBT, I would begin with now not the primal, and mystical, beginning. History helps explain BBT.

iPhone
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
As I have argued elsewhere, it is completely wrong to mix science ( t > 0 ) with metaphysics ( t = 0 ) and lump them together, calling the heterogeneous mixture the Big Bang.

Helio wrote
when the laws of physics approach the first Planck sec., then I prefer to restrict BBT itself to moments thereafter, which were used to predict the well-confirmed CMBR.
I am pleased to see Helio agreeing with this, and I hope more scientists will agree with this. However, at present, virtually any book or magazine you pick up will mix up the two.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and COLGeek
Please, let's not conflate GRT with "the" BBT.

GRT does not tell a story. Rather, it quantifies relationships of time and spatial measurements to provide predictable structure to what had been observed paradoxes under preceding theories. How and why those equations work so well is actually still very much mysterious and hard to visualize - but the math works extremely well with actual measured values. At least up to things like event horizons and singularities in black holes.

On the other hand, the main tenant of the BBT is that the universe's observed expansion can be extrapolated backward in time all the way to absolutely everything being a tiny spec. Whether the official theory (Is there such a thing?) goes all the way to a singularity or stops at the Planck radius really doesn't matter - it was a "bang" either way, because of the fantastic inflation/expansion/whatever that happens in a fantastically short time interval. And, whether or not is is an "origin story", where everything happens from nothing , including both matter and time itself, or if it is just the beginning of an "observable universe" without claiming that there was nothing before and nothing anywhere else, it is still the "bang" that makes the theory the "Big BANG Theory".

And, it tries to explain everything with how and why, at least after Planck time and radius. It is those explanations that seem like they are a wad of duct tape, bailing wire and chewing gum being used to pull together a lot of observations from a lot of disciplines that do not have a single cohesive theory that covers them all together, particularly not gravity and quantum mechanics. There are so many unconstrained parameters introduced into the BBT to fit the narrative that it will always be possible to keep altering those or even adding more of them to "fit" any new observations.

So, I am positive that the BBT will continue to change. And people will argue about whether the need to change means that it was "wrong" before it was changed. But the only thing that will "falsify" the underlying concept would be to show that there was no bang. Demonstrating that the universe oscillates through the phases we are able to observe now, without ever getting tiny, would be about the only way to show that there was no "bang".

There may or may not ever be a strong competing theory that does not involve a "bang". And, even if there is one, or several, it might always be a matter of belief rather than proof as to which one is correct. I think the important consideration is that we not mentally sit back and accept the idea that a "bang" has been proven and close our minds to other possibilities that will surely be proposed from time to time. In particular we need to stop telling people "That isn't what the 'science' (theory) says," when somebody wants to try to formulate something differently than what the "main stream" opinion of the moment says. Differing views need to be evaluated scientifically, not simply compared to the current "group think". We all seem to agree with that statement in principle, but then seem to too often act differently.
 
"On the other hand, the main tenant of the BBT is that the universe's observed expansion can be extrapolated backward in time all the way to absolutely everything being a tiny spec."

In post #53 by Unclear Engineer, I feel your pain here :)

Using my references from de Sitter in 1932 and 1933, the universe size is about 1E+27 cm (one billion LY) radius with mean density about 4.28E-28 g cm^-3. I get that value using a sphere of same radius with about 9E+20 solar masses. Using 13.1E+27 cm radius (13.8 billion LY) and 2E+23 solar masses, mean density near 4.22E-29 g cm^-3. Allen's Astrophysical Quantities Fourth Edition in cosmology section shows the universe Plank density 5.1575E+93 g cm^-3. In December 2013 Alan Guth published the inflation scale maps 10E-53 m to 1 m size today so sub-Planckian lengths are considered just after the BB event in cosmology for inflation epoch. The cosmology calculators show the universe radius is some 40-42 million LY when the CMB appears as light traveling in space. However, that radius is not the radius of the universe when BBN took place creating the CMB (as well as H and He, perhaps some Li). The universe is much smaller still with much greater density and much higher temperature than 3000 or 3300 K, all taking place after inflation.

So, what measurement defines the *tiny spec* size of the universe in BBT and what is the mean density of the universe compared to values I just showed in this post?
 
Rod, I just use "tiny spec" to avoid charactering it as a singularity or get into an argument about the radius of the universe when the BBT says it was vastly smaller than a millimeter. Some theorists keep talking about a singularity, while others essentially cop-out and say the theory does not go any smaller than the Plank radius (~10^-35 meter). For the purposes of my issues, the exact size doesn't matter to me. I am trying to focus more on the sizes when the CMBR was released and the expansion from there to now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Rod, I just use "tiny spec" to avoid charactering it as a singularity or get into an argument about the radius of the universe when the BBT says it was vastly smaller than a millimeter. Some theorists keep talking about a singularity, while others essentially cop-out and say the theory does not go any smaller than the Plank radius (~10^-35 meter). For the purposes of my issues, the exact size doesn't matter to me. I am trying to focus more on the sizes when the CMBR was released and the expansion from there to now.
Okay, this does allow a specific range. I will say about 41 million light years radius for when the CMBR is released, and today a look back time of about 13.8 billion light years radius. However, the actual size is near 46 billion light years radius as measured from Earth (if you could do that).

The cosmology calculators show the universe radius some 40 to 42 million light years radius when the CMBR is released and becomes light. The expansion size seen when using z = 1100 for the redshift, about 13.8 billion light years look back time. The actual size is the comoving radial distance, about 46 billion light years radius as seen from Earth. If folks do not accept the cosmology calculators for these answers, I do not have any calculation or metric to replace them.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
What justification is offered for any such "extrapolation"?

Re: Singularity:

A stinkweed by any other name . . . . . . . . .

With apologies to William Shakespeare:
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a popular adage from William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet seems to argue that it does not matter that Romeo is from her family's rival house of Montague. Wikipedia
Cat :)

From my home 6 miles from Stratford upon Avon.

P.S. I do not see any scientific comment on this: (See Korzybsky "Science and Sanity").

As I have argued elsewhere, it is completely wrong to mix science ( t > 0 ) with metaphysics ( t = 0 ) and lump them together, calling the heterogeneous mixture the Big Bang.
 
Last edited:
Rod, I was using one of the calculator that are in the NASA link that you posted in reply #45 to start making a table of what red shift values relate to. This is the one I am using: https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html . It does not have distance at emission.

However, it does have "Luminosity Distance", which is much larger than any of the other measures of distance. It comes out to about 4 times the "Comoving Radial Distance" for a red shift of 3. I did look at the definition of the Luminosity Distance, and I do not understand why it is so large. It looks like the distance that would be expected for a known light source strength based on how bright it appears here. So, it seems like it should be similar to the light travel distance as computed by light travel time, and would be smaller than the comoving distance, not larger. Can you explain to me what is going on with Luminosity Distance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Cat, I think you are asking what the justification is for the BBT to extrapolate the observed isotropic expansion of the universe backward in time to a single point?

Assuming that is the question, it seems like a useful thought process if only to look for a place where that reversed expansion stops due to some laws of physics, or perhaps where it would not have been able to expand from such a small point into what we see now, so we can assume it was never that small.

The problem is that the BBT adds unconstrained parameters to get around such restrictions for making a small, dense mass defy gravity and become the huge universe - "Inflation". Until the CMBR observation was "explained" by carefully choreographed assumptions about how Inflation progressed, there was a lot more resistance to the Inflation concept. But, now the concept of Inflation is main-stream theory.

Still, the CMWB is thought to have been emitted when the universe was 1/1080 of its current size, or about 46 billion /1080 = 43 million light years in diameter. The path from there back to Planck radius of about 10^-35 meter seems hard to accept, along with the fantastic expansion rate from that size to the CMBR size. That is supported only by the quantum mechanics theorists, who are working from atom smasher results - and using a lot of assumptions about timing. It makes me skeptical that that part of the BBT needs to transform from quantum mechanics to astronomy while we still have no theory that can unify gravity with quantum mechanics.

So, the "justification" for the BBT assumptions seems to be that the theorists can at least make a quantitatively plausible story the way they are doing it, and there is no competing theory that has (yet) convinced people that there is an equally plausible alternative. Remember, "plausible" does not even prove "possible", much less "real".
 
Rod, I was using one of the calculator that are in the NASA link that you posted in reply #45 to start making a table of what red shift values relate to. This is the one I am using: https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html . It does not have distance at emission.

However, it does have "Luminosity Distance", which is much larger than any of the other measures of distance. It comes out to about 4 times the "Comoving Radial Distance" for a red shift of 3. I did look at the definition of the Luminosity Distance, and I do not understand why it is so large. It looks like the distance that would be expected for a known light source strength based on how bright it appears here. So, it seems like it should be similar to the light travel distance as computed by light travel time, and would be smaller than the comoving distance, not larger. Can you explain to me what is going on with Luminosity Distance?
That is a good calculator and I use too as well as these sites. Cosmology Calculators (caltech.edu)

Cosmology calculator | kempner.net, LAMBDA - Links to Calculators (nasa.gov)

"Luminosity Distance is something I looked up using Google :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measure

"What is luminosity distance dL? Luminosity distance DL is defined in terms of the relationship between the absolute magnitude M and apparent magnitude m of an astronomical object. which gives: where DL is measured in parsecs."

Using that definition, it seems the absolute magnitude for the CMBR when released as light is calculated and compared to apparent magnitude in the CMBR as seen from Earth today. Using absolute magnitude -31 and apparent magnitude +30, I calculate some 51.69 x 10^12 light years distance. I get distances like this using Ned Wright and others when z = 1100. How this distance is used in cosmology I am not sure about. Ned Wright does discuss the luminosity distance, Cosmology Tutorial - Part 2 (ucla.edu)

An update on luminosity distance. Using Stellarium 0.22.2 and the star Altair, Stellarium shows apparent magnitude 0.75 and absolute magnitude 2.20. That gives a distance of 16.727 light years, Stellarium shows distance 16.73 +/- 0.05 light year. It seems in cosmology, luminosity distance is related similar to redshift values obtained, thus the CMBR z = 1100, places it way out there :)
 
Last edited:
Rod, I have been reading your links - and more. But, I am no expert on the math involved, and am not about to commit the time and energy to become one at this point in my life. So, I am mostly dependent on other people's conclusions.

In that regard, I note the following paragraph from Wikipedia:

"Current status[edit]
"Unsolved problem in physics:
"Is the universe homogeneous and isotropic at large enough scales, as claimed by the cosmological principle and assumed by all models that use the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, including the current version of ΛCDM, or is the universe inhomogeneous or anisotropic?[18][19][20] Is the CMB dipole purely kinematic, or does it signal a possible breakdown of the FLRW metric?[18] Even if the cosmological principle is correct, is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric valid in the late universe?[18][21]
(more unsolved problems in physics)
"The current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, uses the FLRW metric. By combining the observation data from some experiments such as WMAP and Planck with theoretical results of Ehlers–Geren–Sachs theorem and its generalization,[22] astrophysicists now agree that the early universe is almost homogeneous and isotropic (when averaged over a very large scale) and thus nearly a FLRW spacetime. That being said, attempts to confirm the purely kinematic interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) dipole through studies of radio galaxies [23] and quasars [24] show disagreement in the magnitude. Taken at face value, these observations are at odds with the Universe being described by the FLRW metric. Moreover, one can argue that there is a maximum value to the Hubble constant within an FLRW cosmology tolerated by current observations, {\displaystyle H_{0}=71\pm 1} km/s/Mpc, and depending on how local determinations converge, this may point to a breakdown of the FLRW metric in the late universe, necessitating an explanation beyond the FLRW metric.[25][18] "

The equations are so hard to deal with that assumptions are used to simplify them, and I have to wonder if we are missing something really important when we do that. Or, maybe we have missed something really important in even forming the equations. They are based on the need to deduce equations that are solutions to a set of criteria gleaned from observations. That is not a straight-forward process, it requires insight and inductive logic. Just because one solution works does not guarantee that there are no other solutions that could also work. So, I keep asking myself "What might we all be missing?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
I suspect magnitudes require a radial velocity adjustment since any recessional motion will produce a reduced photon stream rate. So are these magnitudes adjusted to comoving values?
 
I suspect magnitudes require a radial velocity adjustment since any recessional motion will produce a reduced photon stream rate. So are these magnitudes adjusted to comoving values?

Helio, that was what I was suspecting, too. It just seems so obvious that I would expect the calculator to make that adjustment. Maybe it is not made for some reason in astronomy, such as how hard it would be to observe an object with those parameters. But, as a distance, it is certainly inconsistent with the BBT.

It does raise a question in my mind whether all of those Hubble Constant measurements, which use assume luminosities of "standard candle" phenomena such as type 1a supernovas, make the adjustment when computing distances. I suspect they must, or they would be getting distances that are far beyond 14 billion light years, according to the calculator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Just my note based upon discussions here concerning distances and the cosmology calculators. The size of the universe when the CMBR appears as light is about 80-82 million light years in diameter using radius 40-41 million light years. The look back time or light time distance is about 13.8 billion light year radius so diameter for the universe is about 27.6 billion light years for look back distance in BBT when z = 1100. Okay, the comoving radial distance is about 46 billion light years radius so diameter now 92-93 billion light years in the BBT, expanding universe model. Okay, now the luminosity distance. That is about 50 trillion light years radius when z = 1100 so a diameter of about 100 trillion light years. Like Unclear Engineer, I am not a math expert in cosmology but do see size changes like this for the universe in BBT using the published cosmology calculators. I know using my 90-mm refractor telescope and 10-inch Newtonian telescope, I do not see such large distances like this from my location on Earth :)
 
Here is another report for H0 = 75 km/s/Mpc now, issues being reported about BBT.

Astronomers map distances to 56,000 galaxies, largest-ever catalog, https://phys.org/news/2022-09-astronomers-distances-galaxies-largest-ever.html

"How old is our universe, and what is its size? A team of researchers led by University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa astronomers Brent Tully and Ehsan Kourkchi from the Institute for Astronomy have assembled the largest-ever compilation of high-precision galaxy distances, called Cosmicflows-4. Using eight different methods, they measured the distances to a whopping 56,000 galaxies. The study has been published in The Astrophysical Journal... From the newly published measurements, the researchers derived the expansion rate of the universe, called the Hubble Constant, or H0. The team's study gives a value of H0 = 75 kilometers per second per megaparsec or Mpc (1 megaparsec = 3.26 million light years), with very small statistical uncertainty of about 1.5%...Astronomers have assembled a framework that shows the universe's age to be a little more than 13 billion years old, however a dilemma of great significance has arisen in the details. Physics of the evolution of the universe based on the standard model of cosmology predicts H0 = 67.5 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of 1 km/s/Mpc. The difference between the measured and predicted values for the Hubble Constant is 7.5 km/s/Mpc—much more than can be expected given the statistical uncertainties. Either there is a fundamental problem with our understanding of the physics of the cosmos, or there is a hidden systematic error in the measurements of galaxy distances."

My observation. Using https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html with z = 1100 and H0 = 75 km/s/Mpc, age of universe = 12.734 x 10^9 years old. Look back distance or light travel time distance = 12.734 x 10^9 LY. Universe sizes and age of the universe change greatly now using H0 = 75 km/s/Mpc compared to values where H0 = 67 to 69 km/s/Mpc.
 
FYI for any reading this interesting discussion and threads. Here is a report I read on inflation.

Simulating the inflationary Universe: from single-field to the axion-U(1) model, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13616

The PDF report is 129 pages with much math :) Here are some points I note about the report. There is a good section on the horizon problem with the CMB. The original or standard BB model never predicted such an isotropic temperature for the CMB, what we see on Earth near 2.7 K with variation about 10^-5 K all over the sky is not a prediction of BBT. The paper discusses inflation as the inflaton field and an axion field, 145 references to axion. The report discusses how inflation creates primordial black holes (PBH), too many PBH flood the early universe shortly after inflation ends without some tweaks apparently :). We have magnetic monopoles. The inflaton field goes beyond the standard particle physics model. Indeed, the horizon problem is a problem (light-travel-time problem) for BBT explanation for the CMB, inflation seeks to solve the issue while introducing other interesting items into nature like the inflaton field or axion field or creation of numerous PBH.
 
The H-L constant is a variable. Ho is the rate for today’s universe, not the expansion rate in the earliest, post inflation period. Lemaitre, in the 30’s showed how the rate might change given the variation in baryonic density with time.

Homogeneity is given in every major BB model. It was assumed by Einstein, Friedman, Lemaitre and others. The paper mentioned notes (2.2.1) that the FLRW model includes homogeneity and isotropy. As you note, the degree of anisotropy was a surprise, though surprises for a theory as broad as BBT were expected from the beginning, especially as QM entered this GR theory.

Peebles book list the many attempts by Gamow, Alpher, himself and others to estimate what the CMBR temp. might be. The key was getting close on what the baryonic density was at that time. But the ~3000K temp. seems to have been known to trigger atomic formation (Recombination).

Since the 60’s, the temp. predictions dropped from about 50K (due likely to a poor Ho value) to close to 3K. This is why Dicke and Peebles knew what to tell Wilson and Penzias when they called them for help with what was producing all their observed unrelenting noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Helio, what Einstein used like de Sitter for an isotropic universe is not the hot cosmic fireball cooling to create the universe. It was George Gamow who developed the cosmic fireball view back in the late 1940s seeking to explain the origin of all the elements from hydrogen to Uranium using fusion. Using the original 50 K CMB to 3 K temperature evolution of the cosmic fireball, what does Peebles book show for the CMB temperature variation *we should see across areas larger than 1 degree* in the sky? Calculations using 50 K or 3 K as the original starting temperature for the CMB when released as light, much math reworked here for the CMB temperature range observable today and the 1-degree angular size in the sky is critical to the horizon problem it seems.

I note about the horizon problem, ref - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.13616.pdf, 129-page PDF report. “2.1.2 The horizon problem Inflation was originally introduced to solve some observational problems of the original Big Bang model [3–7]. One of these is the so-called horizon problem, related to the homogeneity of the Universe on very large scales. Thanks to observations, we know that the Universe was already homogeneous at the epoch of recombination. This epoch, occurred roughly 370 thousand years after the Big Bang, is when the Universe cooled down enough to allow electrons and protons to form neutral hydrogen atoms. At this time, the Universe became transparent to electromagnetic radiation, which was emitted everywhere and is still observable today in the form of a background radiation permeating the Universe: the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB has a special property: its temperature does not depend on the particular direction we observe it. This can be seen in fig. 2.1, where we show the CMB radiations as seen from the Planck satellite. This radiation is homogeneous, and the fluctuations on top of it are very small (of order 10^–5) and statistically independent from the direction. This property of the CMB is a clear evidence that the Universe was already homogeneous during this early time. Unfortunately, this cannot be explained using the original Big Bang model. To see this, let us compute the physical distance that a photon travels between times t1…At a given time, this quantity represents the maximum distance between two points such that they are causally connected. From the second equality of (2.5) we can see that the horizon depends on the evolution in e-folds time Ne of the so-called Hubble radius rH = (aH)^–1. If we compute the particle horizon at the time of recombination using the old Big Bang model, the result is too small to explain the homogeneity of the CMB. Indeed, one can use this equation to compute that only ~ 1-degree patches in the sky could be causally connected at the time of emission, which is in contrast with the fact that the CMB has the same temperature across all sky. This is known as the horizon problem."
 
My post #70 stated, "Using the original 50 K CMB to 3 K temperature evolution of the cosmic fireball, what does Peebles book show for the CMB temperature variation *we should see across areas larger than 1 degree* in the sky? Calculations using 50 K or 3 K as the original starting temperature for the CMB when released as light, much math reworked here for the CMB temperature range observable today and the 1-degree angular size in the sky is critical to the horizon problem it seems."

To correct this post in #70, the CMB temperature when it became visible light is said to be some 3300 K to 3000 K and cooled to 50 K, original value of George Gamow and Ralph Alpher that we should see and now near 3 K temperature today. The original BBT CMB predicted temperature needs to be shown for areas 1-degree across or so. Are we looking at 50 K +/- 5 k variation? 3 K +/- 2 k variation? A range of differences like this is not what is seen today in the CMB. Today it is some 2.7 k +/- 10^-5 K variation over a 1-degree area in the sky, all across the entire sky. As I understand inflation, the inflaton field is needed now to explain such isotropy for the evolution of the cosmic fireball, the CMB.
 
Nov 16, 2019
41
4
1,535
As I understand inflation, the inflaton field is needed now to explain such isotropy for the evolution of the cosmic fireball, the CMB.
Now, I once heard it said the universe’s energy budget is close to zero somehow.

A black hole gives infinite compression…and perhaps is enough to bud off another universe.

I guess that means the multiverse is diesel…
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Apr 13, 2021
338
33
710
People talk about dark matter and dark energy

To understand condensates and their properties will give an understanding to explain the matter/energy that some call dark matter/energy.

The dipolar electromagnetic vector fields gives an idea how condensed matter can be expelled from the core and how the core can mimic vector fields that are defined as black holes.

The size of these cores are unlimited MILKYWAY has a core about 8 million solar mass, m87 has over 8 billion solar mass, supercluster core over 100 billion solar masses.

Imagine the attraction and the vortex that are created. Understanding this gives you are key to understanding the formations created throughout the universe. Such as hour glass, spiral galaxies etc.
 
I am waiting for this (or some other thread here) to pick-up on how the Webb data are going to force changes in the BBT. Not that any observations can "falsify" such a malleable theory. but the CMBR/first-stars/galaxy-evolution parts of the model seem to be in jeopardy of needing revisions, at least according to a persistent thread over on the cosmoquest forum.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY