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

[Helio]

... 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.

Yes, but I wouldn't phrase it as being in some sort of jeopardy, however.

The earliest stars and galaxies, and clusters, have been almost completely unobservable, even with gravity lensing of quasars, so the JWST should be able to allow a better understanding of their formation and composition. Perhaps they will find slightly more metals, for example, than expected, which would likely speed the rate of those formations.

Hopefully, there will be some big surprises to keep a lot of scientists, like Jerry, happy. [I assume you were referring to his posts. I have always admired his efforts to scrutinize some popular works, like Type 1a SN. I just wish I could understand it all.]

 

[Unclear Engineer]

From what I am understanding of Jerry's posts, the same thing has happened with the first Webb deep field photos as happened with the first Hubble photos. Basically, there seems to be more "evolution" of the galaxies seen than expected. And the galaxies already seen, when seen in more detail by the improved telescopes, seem to challenge the original interpretations of their "primal" conditions by showing more structures, more red, old stars, etc.

It seems that there has been a lot of bias to see what is expected to be there when squinting at fuzzy images in subsets of wavelengths, only to have those expectations dashed by better images from better scopes. Confirmation bias.

I am just giving it more time for the new work to look at all the info that Webb can bring to bear on the evolution of galaxies, because I am trying to not become guilty of my own confirmation bias, But, even before Webb was launched, I have been expecting that it would show something similar to what Hubble showed - that the theory of galaxy evolution is too cramped in time, as it is currently portrayed.

 

[Harry Costas]

Always be open minded to more evidence

Knowing more science also helps along the way.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Always be open minded to more evidence

Knowing more science also helps along the way.

True.

But it is important to not confuse "science" with "theory". Blind belief in theories hinders actual science, because it fights new insights until they are "proven". When theories are making predictions that can be tested, that is not so much of a problem. But, when theories are not testable, as much of the BBT is not, with current understanding and technologies, it is dismaying to see the echo chambers of "true believers" who insist that something cannot be because it is not already part of their favorite theory. It may not even be prohibited by their theory, and may even simply ask if there are other implications of the unverified assumptions in their theory. They just don't want it discussed and messing up their mental image of their theory.

When thinking about theoretical aspects of a subject, it is extremely important to keep in mind what we actually know to be factual by observation/experimentation, and what we can only hypothesize is causing some of those observations. There is far more uncertainty in the hypotheses than in the observations. Questioning hypotheses and looking at logical extensions of hypotheses beyond only what is needed to make a theory work is a valuable part of scientific method.

So, yes, an open mind is important. And, so is critical thinking. As has been observed before, anything left open and unguarded quickly gets filled with trash by the tourists, and that includes your mind.

 

[Helio]

True.

But it is important to not confuse "science" with "theory". Blind belief in theories hinders actual science, because it fights new insights until they are "proven".

Right, beliefs are far more of the philosophical and religious realms. But a scientific theory must be objective-based and testable, so the two are tied to one another by objectivity.

But, when theories are not testable, as much of the BBT is not, with current understanding and technologies, it is dismaying to see the echo chambers of "true believers" who insist that something cannot be because it is not already part of their favorite theory. It may not even be prohibited by their theory, and may even simply ask if there are other implications of the unverified assumptions in their theory. They just don't want it discussed and messing up their mental image of their theory.

But, when theories are not testable, as much of the BBT is not, with current understanding and technologies, …

Any theory that necessarily involves every element of GR and quantum mechanics will likely be the most testable theory of all time. BBT has made many predictions, including the CMBR, distant quasars, isotropy, homogeneity, small anisotropy, hydrogen ratios, force ratios, lack of metals for Pop III stars, galactic morphologies, Lyman forest, and tons more. [/QUOTE]

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think you are overstating the case for what the BBT predicted vs what it has accommodated.
And, I don't see how anything much before the CMBR is going to be testable in any normal sense. The quantum mechanics guys are still wondering what happened to magnetic monopoles, antimatter, etc. Some of us aren't even sure why they think magnetic monopoles ever where real, but that's their theory. And, the BBT is working on not conserving energy, but trying to still conserve "information". How are we going to test whether information is lost or even just hidden from our observable universe when matter goes into a black hole?

 

[johnandrewkarr]

What's the theory on how all the matter and energy prior to the BBT was first compressed into the size of a house (or whatever) to begin with? The rubberband theory? Where everything goes out and returns ... still need a starting point.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What's the theory on how all the matter and energy prior to the BBT was first compressed into the size of a house (or whatever) to begin with? The rubberband theory? Where everything goes out and returns ... still need a starting point.

That is the issue being discussed in a lot of forums.

Some theorists extrapolate the observed expansion of the universe backwards to a single, dimensionless point at "time zero" and insist that there was nothing, no time, no space, no energy, nothing before that.

Others do not "buy" that everything came from nothing for no reason, and suggest that the extrapolation backwards in time does not properly go all the way back to a single point. Some are looking for what you mentioned, an oscillation process in space that cyclically has matter (and maybe space itself) get compressed and rebound into expansion. But, there are no mainstream theories that are well received on how that could happen, so far, at least.

The latest response of some of the Big Bang Theory adhearents is to recognize that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal says we cannot measure (or otherwise know) all the parameters of the physcial state of a system that is below a certain (extremely small) size, called the Planck radius. So, before the universe is theorized to have expanded to the Planck radius (at the "Planck time" after t=0) the theory is claimed to not apply by some. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units for an explanation and the sizes of these Planck units. They are tiny - nothing like "the size of a house" you mentioned in your OP. The Planck radius is about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 inch. But, that really isn't an explanation, it is just a recognition that the theory can't cover whatever happened before that time and size.

So, the current options seem to be (1) yes everything started from a single point, with nothing before it because there was no time (or anything else) before it, or (2) we don't have any theory for the universe before "Planck time". Of course, even after Planck time, the Big Bang Theory is not necessarily correct. It depends on whether quantum mechanics theorists have extrapolated the results of their atom smasher experiements correctly to astronomical dimensions. And, there are multiple problems in the quantum mechanical world with their current theories. such as where did all of the anti-matter go that the theory says should have been created in the same amounts as normal matter, and then it all should have annihilated itself back into pure energy (light photons).

So, in reality, the BBT is a "work-in-progress" and some progress will probably be made with the new Webb Space Telescope and the new techniques for measuring waves in the gravitational field coming from distant major events like black hole mergers.

Stay tuned, its an exciting time.

 

[Helio]

Nice post, UE.

I will add that most scientists reject any “theory” that finds itself in Never Never Land. Theories, especially BBT, must make predictions that are testable, even if in a lab or in principle. Less than the Planck moment, there is no known way to test anything, so this is metaphysics or mere supposition.

 

[johnandrewkarr]

Great insights, both.

 

[Harry Costas]

Assuming a start to the universe.
Puts you in a confined Theory.
Rather than you think of a start.
look at how the universe functions now.
Scientists say the universe is expanding. To where?
Scientists say the universe expansion is accelerating.
My question is: What force does the accelerating?

If you look at the big picture.
The universe is infinite in space and matter.
Matter collects into clusters due to gravity. We can observe clustering in galaxies, galaxies forming groups. groups of galaxies forming super clusters and so on.
Space cannot expand.
So! what does expand?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not going to agree that it has been proven that "Space cannot expand."

But, I am willing to look for alternatives to that hypothesis.
One possibility is that the rate of the passage of time differs around the universe in some fashion.
But, I have not developed a theory to define, much less test, how that might explain astronomy observations that do not seem to fit expectations.

One thing with respect to a "start": We do observe that the universe is changing in apparently non-reversible ways.
So, that implies that it started, or at least has previously been in, a different condition than we see today.
Unless we find a way that the current conditions recycle heavier elements than hydrogen back into hydrogen, and reset entropy, we have the same problem extrapolating many observed processes backwards in time, not just the redshift observation. So, there are many things that point backwards to some sort of "initial condition".

Whether that initial condition was the beginning of "everything" in some sort of Big Bang, or merely an inflection point in a cyclic process is still an open question in my mind.

It seems to me that gravitational compressions of the magnitudes hypothesized for the centers of black holes approach the same types of physical states that theorists attribute to the earliest conditions of the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that such conditions, which are theorized to break matter down into whatever its most elemental parts may be, and even change the "fields" that maybe are responsible for creating matter, cannot be a resetting mechanism. I do not see any plausible need to maintain "information" or even go to the Plank size to eliminate "information", for some sort of universe resetting phenomenon.

And, I am open to the idea that some sort of universe resetting process might be less drastic than compressing everything into a tiny space approaching a mathematical singularity. But, I don't have a theory on what else it might be.

I just think that the BBT is so malleable that it can be adjusted to fit whatever observations come along, without being proven by any of them. Some parts look reasonably realistic, because they are most closely coupled to actual observations, while other parts look entirely unprovable.

So, I am not believing that the BBT is as much of a sure thing as its proponents like to claim.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Unclear Engineer
If you assume the BBT is an option, then you look for an early universe.

The deeper we look in any direction we observe billions of galaxies in deep field images over 13.4 billion light years away.
NASA said to me that during the early universe time and space was different.

Time is not a physical item, you cannot change it, in whatever.
Space cannot be changed.

Matter can be transformed from one phase to another. From compaction to expansion in small to monstrous scales.
Compaction in forming stars, forming cores of galaxies.
Expansion from cores such as Neutron Stars to dipolar vortices such as M87, jets 100,000 Lyrs, Supercluster of galaxies have vortices in millions of Lyrs.

The more we look into it, the more the BBT is out of the picture.

 

[Robotron]

Turns out Van Flandern was right. The 30 biggest problems with the Big Bang loom larger than ever before, thanks to Webb: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The final nail in the coffin--the point at which a critical mass of BB proponents finally throw in the towel--will be when Webb reveals objects that are two, three or more times older than the putative age of the universe. We already have plenty of "too evolved" objects under review, and Webb is barely getting started.

Yes, the BB faithful will slap on additional variables and invent more "dark [enter new 'discovery' here]" to patch up the model on life support. After all, there is virtually no observation that can falsify the BB in the minds of its most vociferous adherents. But the time in near when this model will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

[Harry Costas]

Has it been 11 months to repost a comment.
I like the comments.
The biggest problem with the BB, is that it was driven by politics and churches wanting the narrative of a sudden creation.
Scientists were paid to give positive theories to the BB, or else no funds.
Schools were encouraged to study the BB.
Space Forums were only allowing people who thought along the lines of the BB.

Science is science prove them right or wrong.

 

[Coconutwater]

What caused the big bang? And where did the matter for the BB come from, if there was nothing before the BB?

 

[Catastrophe]

What caused the big bang? And where did the matter for the BB come from, if there was nothing before the BB?

One idea is that the Universe is cyclic, so a phase begins with a big bang and ends in a large black hole, only to start again with another big bang . . . . . . . . .

Of course, some might say that this just pushes the "beginning" further back.
At this point you might like to look up Moebius Strip and Klein Bottle, and see if these give you any ideas?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

We cannot get any information about the BB prior to 10^-43 seconds. At that time, every particle was so massive, due to its energy, that it was a tiny black hole. No information can be transmitted between black holes. Any explanation of what caused the BB would necessarily be termed "supernatural".

The mass/energy created is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential of all the mass separating as the universe expanded. There is no excess quantity of mass/energy on the books that needs to be explained. The Second Law was not violated.

 

[Catastrophe]

Billslugg,

The mass/energy created is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential of all the mass separating as the universe expanded. There is no deficit on the books that needs to be explained. The Second Law was not violated.

Does this mean that you can have limitless cycles, without violating the 2nd law?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Sure, limitless cycles might simply bounce off that point, I suppose. The only problem with a cyclic universe is that it is expanding at an accelerating rate. When is it going to slow down and reverse?

 

[Catastrophe]

Sure, limitless cycles might simply bounce off that point, I suppose. The only problem with a cyclic universe is that it is expanding at an accelerating rate. When is it going to slow down and reverse?

I did send off a quick email, but, sadly, as yet, I have had no reply.

Perhaps we are alone on this one?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think it is silly to use a theory which invokes things like "inflation" and "expansion" doing different things at different times for unexplainable reasons as a basis for saying what the universe will or will not do in the future. In other words, IF the universe really did what the BBT says it did in the past, we would have no way to predict how "dark energy" will behave in the future, because we have no understanding of why it did what it is theorized to have done in the past.

As for "the universe having zero net energy at all times", we really have no proof of that. It is a concept in a theory, based on the conjecture of more energy that we cannot measure than on knowledge of energy that we can measure.

It would be helpful if posters would write "According to the current version of the BBT, ..." instead of stating that "..." as fact, which is most certainly is not proven to be at this point in our understanding.

 

[Helio]

We cannot get any information about the BB prior to 10^-43 seconds.

Yes. Planck demonstrated there is no time unit less than that, yet at the t=0 beginning something happened. I wonder if quantum physicist expect some sort of time jump between t=0 and t=1E-43 sec.? Has anyone seen this idea?

However, I'm confident, from what I've read, that the "wheels go flying off the cart" of all physics' models when time becomes less than, say, 1E-20, though Inflation "theory" is based on events deemed likely at t=1E-35 sec.

CERN, as we've discussed, can only test events down to abut 1E-12sec. Worse, the size of particle accelerator to bump this much would be bigger than our planet's circumference.

At that time, every particle was so massive, due to its energy, that it was a tiny black hole. No information can be transmitted between black holes. Any explanation of what caused the BB would necessarily be termed "supernatural".

The original view of what was at the beginning came, AFAIK, from Lemaitre, perhaps around 1931. Fission events and cosmic rays were becoming a big deal in physics, so how thought that there was this super element that suddenly began to engage in fission and expanded space. This was speculative, of course. He even called his model, which was the first BB model, his "Primeval atom" theory.

Also, would the primordial "blackhole" be in space if it produced space?

The mass/energy created is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential of all the mass separating as the universe expanded.

This might apply. There is an unimaginable discrepancy 1E120 between what is predicted (quantum mechanics) and what is found. I got lost at this level, however.

There is no excess quantity of mass/energy on the books that needs to be explained. The Second Law was not violated.

I'm unclear if there is a consensus on whether or not the 2nd law is a requirement when applied to the entire universe. Some clearly argue, perhaps weakly, that it doesn't.

 

[Helio]

I think it is silly to use a theory which invokes things like "inflation" and "expansion" doing different things at different times for unexplainable reasons as a basis for saying what the universe will or will not do in the future.

Yes, Inflation theory was born out of necessity to patch the two complaints with BBT -- the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem . But some justifiably argue, fairly I think, that, as a theory, it must make specific testable predictions.

It is popular because it came from quantum physics ideas and it solves wonderfully both those problems. I doubt it will go away and I doubt it will be fully justified, but what do I know?

In other words, IF the universe really did what the BBT says it did in the past, we would have no way to predict how "dark energy" will behave in the future, because we have no understanding of why it did what it is theorized to have done in the past.

Yes, but GR had no problem demonstrating DE as found in the cosmological constant (putting pressure in spacetime to prevent collapse). Lemaitre comfortably included it in his model and he, and others (e.g. Edington) refused to drop it. DE today, however, is far more pressure than what Einstein held, before dumping his constant (1931) once he recognized the merits of Lemaitre's work.

As for "the universe having zero net energy at all times", we really have no proof of that. It is a concept in a theory, based on the conjecture of more energy that we cannot measure than on knowledge of energy that we can measure.

Yeah. This does seem a bit ad hoc. If there is a hypothesis for this, I'd bet there are limited unambiguous tests of it.

It would be helpful if posters would write "According to the current version of the BBT, ..." instead of stating that "..." as fact, which is most certainly is not proven to be at this point in our understanding.

Well, it helps to remember that no theory can be proven, only accepted on its own merits until falsified.

BBT was not an acceptable theory initially. Einstein called it abominable in 1927 when Lemaitre showed it to him. The only objective evidence was that of Slipher (redshifts) and Hubble (distances to spiral nebulae). He combined those two items and applied it to GR.

It took far better telescopes to find other lines of supporting evidence. In the meantime, an alternative model was introduced in defiance of it -- Steady State theory.

The CMBR was the final nail in the coffin for SST, though a few never gave up on it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is an infinite range of possibilities between "static" and a one-time "big bang". They involve dynamics that include non-uniform universes, and perhaps processes on size scales that we do not (yet?) imagine.

Remember, Relativity Theory is a mathematical formalization for what we observe, not a basic explanation of why we observe it. And, it works well here on Earth, and has proven to work pretty well for most astronomy observations, but not all astronomy observations. It needs "dark matter" to make it fit observations at galactic and intergalactic sizes, and it needs "dark energy" to match the apparent expansion assumed to be the cause of redshifts and the cosmic microwave background radiation.

So, Relativity theory seems to be incomplete, and its hypothesized additions seem highly speculative. The additions included in the BBT are "engineered" to explain how the universe could have come to be what we see today if it really had started at a single point. They are necessary because Relativity Theory alone would not be able to get from that point to what we observe now.

There are people working seriously on other theories, but the BBT has so permeated education that I think is suppresses those efforts, along with the sense of wonder and realization of how little is really understood well enough to be called "fact".