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

Page 5 - 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.
Jun 14, 2024
6
0
10
Visit site
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 :)
Thank you and I did. However, it does not answer the question of origin. If the first phase started with the big bang, what caused it and where did the material come from? No scientist has ever been able to answer what the question of what caused the big bang.
 
I'm guessing that if the CMBR is ancient, it's density pattern would be fixed. Like star patterns. But if the density pattern fluctuates, then it's source is local. Relatively local. And EM is being emitted for some unknown dynamic. Perhaps charge interactions and dipole mating? In the microscopic ice of the Oort Cloud?

Watch the pattern.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Coconutwater, glad you found that interesting.
First, I would just like to point out a small but important, matter of terminology.
This arises from the actual t = 0 (which I take to mean the actual happening, which we don't understand, and what came next after only the minutest fraction of a second, which we call the Big Bang (BB) and associated Big Bang Theory (BBT). We do have some claim (however it may be exaggerated) to understanding BBT.

I like the idea (which I consider sound) that, once you start requiring "infinite" or "infinity", it is symptomatic of something unreal about the theory. This is because it is brought about by division by zero. This is mathematically speaking, and not reality. It certainly is not scientific, and should be regarded as metaphysics.

Now let me get to the point that you raise:
If the first phase started with the big bang, what caused it and where did the material come from?

I would like to take this in two parts, akin to what I said above.
It will be distinguished between "t = 0", which might represent the so-called singularity (on which I am not very keen) and a possible nexus between "phases" of the universe.
Both scenarios have their pros and cons, and all this is very little understood.

After "t = 0" matters are a little clearer, but still not certain (IMHO). But you are rightly interested in the earlier development. To me, the idea of "all this" out of nothing does not stack up.
But we must accept that those things are so beyond our experience, that we should not be surprised if they are just beyond our comprehension, at least for the time being.
Considering the "something out of nothing" scenario, it is just not plausible. On the other hand, how are we, now, to understand how things were. Our "laws" apparently did not apply then, because we have to stomach "all this" out of absolutely nothing. Even if you postulate an initial vast energy which converted into mass, and expansion, you are left with the question of where this energy came from.

The cyclic alternative (or alternatives, as there are variations) substitutes a nexus for the singularity, which substitution immediately helps, since the nexus does not require the word "infinitely (small)" - see above. Again, to me, these requirements of "infinite" temperature, and "infinitely high density" just suggest something very wrong with the concept, which, after all, is only arrived at using maths. There is no real science here, of experiments, observation, et cetera.

The problem with cyclic systems is one of entropy. It seems to be assumed that entropy must only increase, as we observe it now. It seems to strike horror into some, to ask whether, if entropy only increases in an expanding universe, does it only decrease in a contracting phase. There is a lot of nonsense suggested, such as eggs un-breaking. No one suggests, I believe, that a contracting universe would require walking backwards to the womb.

However, there is one thing we must understand. We do not necessarily have the sensory equipment to comprehend higher dimensions, which may give totally different views.
From your #101, you have seen the reference to Moebius Strip and Klein Bottle. If the universe is like this, in a higher dimension, it aids understanding considerably. It takes the question of what came before the BB into a higher dimension, and understandable only to beings with the requisite appreciation of higher dimensions.


Anyway, that should be enough to get you started. Please come back if you have any questions.

Cat :)
 
Last edited:
There is a fundamental problem with "origin" and "infinity".

Some have trouble with the idea that there was "nothing" before there was "something" and prefer to think that there was always something, even though it may have changed form over time - so time has always existed - back to "infinity" ago, and there is no absolute "origin", just changes.

Others prefer the idea that nothing goes on forever in time or space - there is no "infinity", so there has to be an "origin".

Picking one or the other is fundamentally a personal issue, so far as we can tell with the observations and physics we have developed so far.

I do enjoy listening to ideas predicated on both conceptualizations. I just get annoyed when somebody insists that they know what is really true because they can regurgitate a theory. The best way to make progress in understanding something is to keep track of what you can prove, what you have actually observed but may not understand properly, and what is "only a theory".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gibsense
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.
Yes, GR does allow for a host of solutions. Failed static models, however, don't count. Also, multiple universes are not mainstream except in conjectural lanes.

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.
Yes. It was the observations that led to the tweaking of BBT.

Newton had to calculate G in order for his universal gravitational equation to work. This value has improved in accuracy over time. The same is true for BBT.

These improving observations do nothing to suggest falsification. Theories give us predictions that help direct observations that can tweak the model.


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.
No theory encompasses the initial instant from t= 0 to past the first Planck second. Attempts for a GUT or a TOE (Theory of Everything) have failed.

As logical as it is to push BBT to t=0, it is unfair to do so just as criticizing all evolutionary models for not including abiogenesis origins. Theories have boundaries and get tweaked whenever improved initial conditions are known, but these must fit the mathematical constraints. These models cannot make useful predictions if we break them with impossible requirements.

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".
I regretfully agree that suppression exists in some fields of science, but this seems to be mainly in those arenas where political actors have the big stick. A better model that explains all the many separate lines of evidence, including the CMBR, would likely win a Nobel quickly.

Remember BBT had to go through more criticism than average due to its shock to mainstream in breaking the static model of the universe that has been around forever. But, once Einstein got on board, it did far quicker than the model from Copernicus.
 
Thank you and I did. However, it does not answer the question of origin. If the first phase started with the big bang, what caused it and where did the material come from? No scientist has ever been able to answer what the question of what caused the big bang.
Correct. Just remember the BBT is not a theory of origin but of expansion from some understandable point. As Darwin's Origin of the Species is not a book on the origin of life, so too is BBT not a theory of the origin of the universe. The TOE (Theory of Everything) is trying to unify forces of nature, for instance, but this is separate from BBT, at least for now.
 
Helio, I am not sure how to read your reply, so I want to reiterate one thing:

The BBT extrapolates the apparent expansion of the universe backwards to what amounts to a point. Arguing about the difference between a "point" and a "volume" at Planck size misses the point I am trying to make.

My point is that the backward extrapolation might go wrong well before it gets the whole universe down to a Planck volume.

Remember, it is based only on a hypothetical "dark energy" that does exactly what is needed to support the theory and is not extrapolated to do anything that might not fit the theory. It is basically an unconstrained free fitting parameter used to make the theory fit the few known facts we have to work with.

All I am saying is that it is possible to use a different unconstrained fitting parameter, or even just a different behavior of the "dark energy" parameter, to make another theory fit an oscillating universe instead of a one-time-bang universe. That is not the same as multiverses, string theory or quantum gravity - it is just a different goal for making a theory to fit what you want to believe, using the same strategy as the BBT.

So, my point about suppressive effect is that people getting cosmology degrees necessarily are forced to learn and regurgitate the BBT on test papers in order to get their diplomas. Some may be able to do that without becoming "believers" and go on to ask questions and look for answers in a more objective manner, but most will succumb to the need to fit in to get research funding and papers accepted.

Most cosmologists are loath to consider non-uniform universe models, because that leads to so many potential situations that it is hard to draw conclusions about what is right and what is fantasy.

The bottom line seems to be that people will stick with the BBT unless and until it becomes either untenable or something better is developed. It is so "flexible" that I don't see how it could be disproven. But, it leaves so many unanswered questions that I have hope that somebody will make a "Well, duh, of course . . ." type realization and get us into a new paradigm of thought about the physics of the universe. But, that will probably only happen if we make some observations that provide missing answers instead of just more BBT model tuning.
 
Helio, I am not sure how to read your reply, so I want to reiterate one thing:

The BBT extrapolates the apparent expansion of the universe backwards to what amounts to a point. Arguing about the difference between a "point" and a "volume" at Planck size misses the point I am trying to make.
An extrapolation outside of known physics is unfair to any theory. The equations of physics fails very close to the imagined singularity point, if indeed there ever was one. TOE and GUT seem to be attempting to be pushing the envelope in this direction, but I see no justification to require BBT to go there. BBT, like any theory, must stand on its merits and its many predictions must be verified. The Big Bang Bullets lists most of these separate lines of evidence that have done so much to earn mainstream's respect.

My point is that the backward extrapolation might go wrong well before it gets the whole universe down to a Planck volume.

Remember, it is based only on a hypothetical "dark energy" that does exactly what is needed to support the theory and is not extrapolated to do anything that might not fit the theory. It is basically an unconstrained free fitting parameter used to make the theory fit the few known facts we have to work with.
Agreed. The label DE is all we have to give a name for the apparent acceleration of the universe as announced in 1999. Recall that GR works with mass/energy. The Type1a SN studies were searching for omega (mass) of the universe. But their results revealed that negative mass was required to fit their results. But, of course, energy also could be factored, which did fit their results. This required the reintroduction of Einstein's cosmological constant approach, according to Reiss....here. [His Nobel paper.]

Skepticism is warranted, but it's one of degree not kind. Both too little and too much skepticism don't work for me. More and better observations will improve, especially from the recent launch of a dedicated DE space telescope.

Notice how this takes us back to 1931. Einstein, recognizing the brilliance of Lemaitre's model, was happy to toss his ad hoc installment of his cosmological constant. But Edington and Lemaitre felt the energy elements affecting GR needed to remain, perhaps due to all those photons out there. But WDIK (What Do I Know)? [If this isn't an abbreviation, it's one now. ;)]

All I am saying is that it is possible to use a different unconstrained fitting parameter, or even just a different behavior of the "dark energy" parameter, to make another theory fit an oscillating universe instead of a one-time-bang universe.
Whatever energy it is, it must be repulsive to allow acceleration. But this wasn't a problem even in the early 1930s. The parameter value will no doubt get tweaked over time. That's not an argument against BBT simply because measurements are needed to find the actual value.

Or are you suggesting something else, like a different kind of energy that will require even greater adjustments?

That is not the same as multiverses, string theory or quantum gravity - it is just a different goal for making a theory to fit what you want to believe, using the same strategy as the BBT.
Only one of those is a scientific theory that has produced quality predictions -- BBT. I know too little of quantum gravity, but string theory has not offered much in predictions, so far. [It isn't void of predictions, however.] The Multiverse "theory" is even more lacking in objective evidence. There is a ton of ad hoc elements found in these other models, AFAIK. Hopefully it will pay off for many of them. Their work is hard science but their current results don't meet the requirements of becoming scientific theories, IMO. Of course, we could always lower those standards, but it would be harmful to civilization if that happens.
So, my point about suppressive effect is that people getting cosmology degrees necessarily are forced to learn and regurgitate the BBT on test papers in order to get their diplomas. Some may be able to do that without becoming "believers" and go on to ask questions and look for answers in a more objective manner, but most will succumb to the need to fit in to get research funding and papers accepted.
That's horribly true for "Climate Scientism", IMO. Once BBT became respected as mainstream, why wouldn't it be taught? It's very likely every cosmology class taught both BBT and Steady State, perhaps others. The CMBR discovery gave BBT the clout it deserves, but all new-comers are welcome, if they are objective-based and can as easily present explanations for all the BB Bullets.

Astronomers in the late 16th and early 17th century learned both Ptolemy's and the model of Copernicus. Kepler used Copernicus's model in his effort that brought about his three laws. But he seems to have been more the exception simply based on the number of reprints favoring Ptolemy during that period. I would hate to have to learn Ptolemy's model today.

Kepler tweaked Copernicus and it became mainstream. BBT got plenty of tweaks since the Primeval Atom theory from Lemaitre. But BBT goes to the observable edge of the universe so it's got a lot tougher job to explain it all, at least where the laws of physics are applicable.

Most cosmologists are loath to consider non-uniform universe models, because that leads to so many potential situations that it is hard to draw conclusions about what is right and what is fantasy.
Well, yes, the principle of homogeneity was a big deal for Einstein and Lemaitre. De Sitter, however, did have a non-uniform model, but it explained redshifts, so it was very popular. Lemaitre noticed this violation of the principle in 1925, or earlier, and this likely boosted him to work on his own model. It's worth noting that de Sitter immediately dumped his model as soon as he went through Lemaitre's model, thanks to the paper he got from Edington, who also recognized its elegance.

So, hopefully, scientists will remember de Sitter's spirit when properly challenged.
The bottom line seems to be that people will stick with the BBT unless and until it becomes either untenable or something better is developed.
Yep. Is that an issue?
It is so "flexible" that I don't see how it could be disproven.
Well, BBT's framework is GR. So if GR stumbles, so too will BBT. Of course, the somewhat recent results where GR was tested to 20 decimal places and found to be right on the mark suggests BBT's framework is in good shape so far.
But, it leaves so many unanswered questions that I have hope that somebody will make a "Well, duh, of course . . ." type realization and get us into a new paradigm of thought about the physics of the universe. But, that will probably only happen if we make some observations that provide missing answers instead of just more BBT model tuning.
A model can only be tweaked so much. A theory that addresses the entire universe that is mostly invisible to humanity take time to do tweaks. I don't think any cosmologist is too surprised they are surprised with things like acceleration (DE).
 
Helio, You are doing what others do that I object to - defending the BBT instead of thinking about where it might go wrong.

We have Hubble and now Webb telling us that our "timeline" for evolution of the universe is not correct even back at hundreds of million years after the CMBR. And the CMBR is as far back as we ever expect to be able to look with telescopes (visible light and radio). Farther back than the CMBR, we only have the speculations of particle physicists on what happened and when, and the "how" is simply not explained, it is just called "inflation".

All I am suggesting is that there may very well be a different history before the CMBR age, which does not involve everything we see now having once been in a volume smaller than a proton. That notion only comes from the limit of extrapolating the apparent expansion of the current universe backward in time, with a lot of assumptions about homogeneity and the introduction of tuning factors that counteract the physics that we do understand. And, once that limit ( a single mathematical point) is almost reached, the theorists suddenly "don't know what happened before that". I think the theorists don't really understand what happened even as recently as the CMBR was released. That is what new telescopes keep telling us, yet the BBT believers are adamant that they can adjust their model, and we should all believe it, again, after each adjustment. To me, that is a clear indication that the theorists are very likely to be missing something big and important.

But, there are many more problems with the BBT, such as why there is not as much antimatter as there is regular matter. It is a long list, that I am not going to reproduce in this post.

All I am saying is that I object to the idea that the current knowledge can really tell us if the universe is a one-time bang or an oscillating eternity. If you just make "inflation" behave in a different manner, you could produce oscillation. And, "inflation" is an unconstrained tuning variable in the BBT. Tune it differently, and there could be no "beginning bang" to get to what we see today. If the interpretation of the CMBR is correct, then that does indicate some sort of phase change in our observable part of our universe, so the BBT defenders would probably just keep calling that "the bang", but it really would be a completely different concept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
When we observe and measure distance from a curve surface, there is a limit to it and we call that limit the horizon.

But if you flatten that surface, the horizon retreats and disappears. It would appear as a straight line while retreating.

Can we detect a horizon out there? If we are in a hyper-sphere, we would have TWO horizons. Both horizons would appear as straight lines. With stars in between them.

But we don't see that. If space is expending, it's not curved.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
We have Hubble and now Webb telling us that our "timeline" for evolution of the universe is not correct even back at hundreds of million years after the CMBR. And the CMBR is as far back as we ever expect to be able to look with telescopes (visible light and radio). Farther back than the CMBR, we only have the speculations of particle physicists on what happened and when, and the "how" is simply not explained, it is just called "inflation".

All I am suggesting is that there may very well be a different history before the CMBR age, which does not involve everything we see now having once been in a volume smaller than a proton. That notion only comes from the limit of extrapolating the apparent expansion of the current universe backward in time, with a lot of assumptions about homogeneity and the introduction of tuning factors that counteract the physics that we do understand. And, once that limit ( a single mathematical point) is almost reached, the theorists suddenly "don't know what happened before that". I think the theorists don't really understand what happened even as recently as the CMBR was released. . . . . . . . . . To me, that is a clear indication that the theorists are very likely to be missing something big and important.

I posted in May,

M, don't make too much of the BBT thing. I think that there is an infinite (OOOps) difference between BBT and t = 0. That interceding difference - reported as getting closer and closer to trillionths (or smaller) of a second is, in my opinion, due to the approaching infinitely (OOOps) large difference caused by division by zero.

Just to bypass by tongue in cheek comments, for infinite(ly), read extremely large.

Cat :)
 
We have Hubble and now Webb telling us that our "timeline" for evolution of the universe is not correct even back at hundreds of million years after the CMBR.
Telescopes don't talk. Thus, we have a wide range of goofy reporters who are paid to find sizzle. Hyperbole helps provide this but the reader must be aware and, if something looks stretched, seek the scientific paper to see what it really claims.

Or do you have a reputable source suggesting BBT is wrong, or appears inaccurate? The JWST was built to discover what took place in earlier times than we could ever have seen without its abilities. In 1953, Hubble finally suggested that redshifts might be due to expansion, though his introduction in that lecture said it is unknown. He also stated that if it is expansion, then we might be capable of looking back 1/4 to 1/2 its history. JWST is taking us where we've never been before, but the evidence so far only tweaks the prior rough estimates involving Pop III productions and galaxy formations. It also confirms the BBT argument of galactic morphology -- where the first galaxies must appear more immature than today's. Quasars also must be found to be more numerous in the first billion years. Have you seen any quasars around today? BBT explains this, Steady State Theory, for instance, can't.

And the CMBR is as far back as we ever expect to be able to look with telescopes (visible light and radio). Farther back than the CMBR, we only have the speculations of particle physicists on what happened and when, and the "how" is simply not explained, it is just called "inflation".
Yes. The CMBR, if it happened as predicted within BBT, is as far back as we will ever see in visible and microwave light. There is hope of some kind of neutrino telescope to takes us very close to the beginning, but I know little of the merits to this idea.

It's unclear what you mean by "how". The "how" to the CMBR was actually a key prediction for BBT (Alpher and Hermann). Namely, expansion cooled the universe until, suddenly due to isotropic conditions, atoms formed, which meant electrons were captured and the mean-free-path of photons became infinite. That's the how, right?

If you see Inflation as too ad hoc, I'm fine with it but try to be open as to its merits. Solving essentially the only two issues for BBT, AFAIK, gives it fair plausibility, at least. But if it can't be tested, is it really a scientific theory? Perhaps it can be tested.

All I am suggesting is that there may very well be a different history before the CMBR age, which does not involve everything we see now having once been in a volume smaller than a proton. That notion only comes from the limit of extrapolating the apparent expansion of the current universe backward in time, with a lot of assumptions about homogeneity and the introduction of tuning factors that counteract the physics that we do understand.
It is easier, at least for me, to extrapolate beyond the CMBR because of the arguments in the "how" to CMBR above, than to push past 1E-12 sec. toward t=0. The earlier quantum theorists (e.g. Gammow) have stepped in the GR model and made testable predictions, thus the BBT is still a valid theory due to its predictions of what must have been, to a high degree of confidence, just prior to the CMBR event (Recombination).

It also demonstrates the key principle in cosmology of homogeneity. The ~ 99,999 parts in 100,000 is very strong evidence for isotropy, and the 1 part in 100,000 is strong evidence for the needed anisotropy to allow gas clouds to collapse into stars.

And, once that limit ( a single mathematical point) is almost reached, the theorists suddenly "don't know what happened before that". I think the theorists don't really understand what happened even as recently as the CMBR was released. That is what new telescopes keep telling us, yet the BBT believers are adamant that they can adjust their model, and we should all believe it, again, after each adjustment. To me, that is a clear indication that the theorists are very likely to be missing something big and important.
Why expect cosmologist to know to many decimal places what took place when there has been zero information from astronomers. Objective evidence will always guide any theory. Consider the age of the Earth and Sun. It required many tweaks to get to a very reliable age. It was objective evidence that corrected both.

That's why the built the JWST -- to see what has never been seen before. Don't conflate expected minor corrections with errors.

But, there are many more problems with the BBT, such as why there is not as much antimatter as there is regular matter. It is a long list, that I am not going to reproduce in this post.
Correct, but this gets into that crazy extrapolation prior to t=1E-12sec. This is pre-BBT, if you will. Again, abiogenesis was never part of evolution of the species. It is only a powerful assumption. Your forcing a round peg to go in a square hole. But the antimatter problem does this so I understand your point.

The mattter-antimater production would do what? Wouldn't it produce vast energy? But that would support the "pre-BBT" view that immense energy cooled by the expansion, forming quarks that then formed nuclei, etc.

But, if another theory can better explain the many lines of evidence that currently supports BBT, then it would likely become favored far quicker than you would expect. The media alone would help make that happen. The news would have incredible... sizzle. This happened with Einstein's near instant rise to fame as it "debunked" Newton. Look at those headlines, and all due to a semi-questionable eclipse photograph or two.
All I am saying is that I object to the idea that the current knowledge can really tell us if the universe is a one-time bang or an oscillating eternity.
BBT doesn't eliminate the idea of a cyclical process. That would be outside of BBT, which is true with any sort of multiuniverse theory. IIRC, the cyclical idea was favored by those early cosmologists. It doesn't alter BBT one iota. The argument of entropy seems to be enough for many scientists to disfavor a cyclical process. And, as you noted, IIRC, how does that process happen with and accelerating universe? Maybe the new space scopes dedicated to DE will help. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Helio, The "how" I was talking about was how inflation works, not how inflation is theorized to have created the CMBR.

Inflation is basically the lambda of the Lambda -Cold-Dark-Matter model. It was added by Einstein to his General Relativity field equations in order to produce a static universe prediction, then deleted when he was shown that the universe is expanding, then resurrected for the BBT. It was originally just a constant, but now people are thinking it might have changed over time. So, what if it is not a constant? If it is a function of time, then it could be a monotonic function (always changing in the same direction) or it could be an oscillating function of time, which could produce a cyclic universe.

But, just some function like lambda = A x sin(t/P) where A is the amplitude and P is the periodicity, would still not explain "how" it works, just what it does. The "how" would be more intellectually enlightening if the periodicity instead came from the solution of the field equations that had been expanded to show some sort of relationship between the expansion rate and other parameters in the equations.

In other words, maybe mathematically lambda is not just a function of time, but rather a function of many variables already in, or perhaps still missing from the current field equations.
 
Regarding the Webb observations not matching expectations, see "Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240628125241.htm .

Sure, the BBT can be modified to accommodate the new observations - it is extremely "flexible". My point is that the BBT is not making predictions that are then verified by observations, such as GRT did with Mercury's orbit, etc.

That is at least reason to question the time line of the BBT, if not the actual events, in the much earlier phases. It is prior to the Cosmic Microwave Background emission that predictions get into quantum physics instead of astronomy observations. The CMBR looks like black body emission.

Even the Cosmic Microwave Background prediction required substantial recalculations to make everything "fit", and that is the main BBT "prediction" that was "verified". Still, it has some problems, such as the "cold spot". And, by the red/blue dipole in its redshift, it seems to create a frame of reference for "space" and our motion through it. IF we are properly interpreting those observations.

My point is that you really don't need something that absolutely disproves a theory in order to see indications that there are substantial reasons to doubt it.

I really think there could be oscillatory action well before getting to Planck radius. And I see no way that can be disproven at this point in our understanding. Not being what the current version of the BBT predicts is not disproof, either.
 
Someone might ask, why would light from as far away as 13.8 billion light years out arrive here without much interference at exactly the same time as light from 3.8 light years out? Or has the telescope, the JWST, become a microscope digging into the light itself, micro-scoping the magnitudes of the quantum physics of the light itself nearly to the horizon limits of a 'point' of the Planck Horizon?
 
Helio, The "how" I was talking about was how inflation works, not how inflation is theorized to have created the CMBR.
Ok. Sorry I misunderstood. But even here, when Gamow introduced his idea he presented a "how". It's too complicated for me. But, are there ways to test his hypothesis? Perhaps no lab will ever be capable of observing these events due to the energy levels required.

It's interesting, at least for me, that they call Inflation "Inflation Theory" but they don't call the CMBR "CMBR Theory". One is not observable and one (CMBR) is, thus the CMBR is another element incorporated within BBT. Inflation theory is not but it seems that cosmologists, for the most part, find it plausible because of its merits, and the fact that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Inflation predicts what is observed. This will allow any better hypothesis to come along an toss it if it is simpler and makes better predictions.
Inflation is basically the lambda of the Lambda -Cold-Dark-Matter model.
AFAIK, Inlfation goes far deeper than what is held for DE. Inflation was a monstrous expansion event due to circumstances only possible at energy levels found around t=1E-35 sec. Perhaps if they discover more about DE then we can compare better.
But, just some function like lambda = A x sin(t/P) where A is the amplitude and P is the periodicity, would still not explain "how" it works, just what it does. The "how" would be more intellectually enlightening if the periodicity instead came from the solution of the field equations that had been expanded to show some sort of relationship between the expansion rate and other parameters in the equations.
I have never seen lambda expressed that way. Einstein's cosmological constant was added by him when it became clear that GR would cause a static universe to collapse. Thus he reluctantly produced a magical term to keep that from happening. He knew it was ad hoc and was very pleased to remove it, though, as noted, others thought it too important to GR to dump.
 
Regarding the Webb observations not matching expectations, see "Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240628125241.htm .
Ok, but look closely at what they are really saying....

"We have confirmed that these appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old."

The estimates for the first star formations are about 400 to 600 million years before time frame. Per BBT, only H, He, and little deuterium, ignoring tiny traces of Li and Be perhaps, was in the universe to be the material for stars. A decade or so ago, no one seemed to know how a star could develop with such a lack of metals. They later produced models that allowed massive stars to be formed, but these, of course, would have short lives. How long? I don't recall but probably only a few million years. Thus, an extra 400 million years of this or more, would produce what? I think they are looking at them. I only scanned the paper but they did not claim what they were seeing were the Pop III stars. So, IMO, the headline meets the sizzle requirement, but, no surprise, seems to be hyperbole.


Sure, the BBT can be modified to accommodate the new observations - it is extremely "flexible". My point is that the BBT is not making predictions that are then verified by observations, such as GRT did with Mercury's orbit, etc.
Yes, but BBT is GR, just applied as a solution of it in cosmology. If GR is falsified, BBT could easily collapse.

The only flexibility I see is in the period where physics is weak. Pop III star formation is still an area of research. Recall that it took the understanding of MHD (magneto hydrodynamics) to finally win over the idea that stars form from nebulae fragmentation, then forming from their resulting accretion disk. The IR observations of protoplanetary disks, especially their bi-polar flows, won the astro community over to this theory. The alternative theories were pretty wild and unacceptable by most.

It is the observations of the predictions of BBT that makes it a very solid theory. These observations have, so far, falsified any static model competitor.

We need to expect more hyperbole in news headlines because they are in competition with so many other outlets. People love, apparently, sizzle more than they disdain hyperbole, plus memories are short.

That is at least reason to question the time line of the BBT, if not the actual events, in the much earlier phases. It is prior to the Cosmic Microwave Background emission that predictions get into quantum physics instead of astronomy observations. The CMBR looks like black body emission.
Ok, but that is how science works. We need bigger and better measuring devices to improve the model and improve our understanding of the cosmos.

And yes, the prediction from Hermann and Alpher was that it must be a bb emission from the CMBR. If it wasn't then there would be a problem. But the bb emission was only one of several predictions for the CMBR. The temperature predictions ranged were mostly above 5K. Gamow's early estimate was, IIRC, 50K. That's all pretty close, IMO, to today's 2.73K using only a guess to the other parameters within BBT. Peebles estimate was very close and his team was building a microwave antenna at the time the Bell duo called him with their noise problem.

Even the Cosmic Microwave Background prediction required substantial recalculations to make everything "fit", and that is the main BBT "prediction" that was "verified". Still, it has some problems, such as the "cold spot". And, by the red/blue dipole in its redshift, it seems to create a frame of reference for "space" and our motion through it. IF we are properly interpreting those observations.
You might change your mind if you read Cosmology's Century by P.J.E. Peebles. It gives the extensive equations and estimation before and after the observations. Too complicated for me, but I enjoy it because there are nuggets I can glean from it to help me.... eschew obfuscation.

My point is that you really don't need something that absolutely disproves a theory in order to see indications that there are substantial reasons to doubt it.
Right. Look at how the Copernican model was disrespected. It took both the tweaks of Kepler and the flat falsification by Galileo (Venus phases) to get it finally accepted.

But BBT came to us in 1931 (introduced in 1927 but ignored). The Big Bang Bullets thread lists the many arguments in its favor. What other model can explain them?
I really think there could be oscillatory action well before getting to Planck radius. And I see no way that can be disproven at this point in our understanding. Not being what the current version of the BBT predicts is not disproof, either.
Right. But as I have stated, any cyclical model is welcome and not contradictory to BBT. But if it is proposed as a "theory", it must meet the predictive demands from it, not to mention the objective evidence framework it needs to have to even suggest it. I think it is worse than Inflation theory as a theory. But, as you note and as is stated often, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Still, I have learned to separate subjective views from objective ones. Thus, emotions, religion, philosophy, etc. can be better understood as to how they should be appreciated or disrespected.
 
Helio, responding to my terminology distinguishing between "theory" and "observation", I don't call the CMBR a "theory" because it is observed. What is causing it is not known for sure, but the assumption that it was caused by the whole backstory of the BBT is basically a theory. And, inflation is a theory, and Dark Energy is a theory, because neither is really an observation. They are both concepts that have been adopted and adapted to try to explain observations. But, we really only infer these concepts from observations, and those concepts may or may not be the actual causes. And, if they are the actual causes, they may not be constants. They may be variable over time or location in space. It is just a simplification for a theory that space is effectively uniform everywhere. We keep finding larger structures, and finding things are different in times past than predicted by the version of the BBT that was in use before it is adjusted to the conflicting observations. Even the BBT messes with what forces were in effect at different times in the past. It may or may not be correct in that, but it is already changing physics over time. So, it is inconsistent to complain that somebody else might suggest that in a different way than the BBT believers insist on.

As for never having seen somebody write the cosmological "constant" as a function of time (much less a sine function), my point is exactly that: people are assuming it is a constant, when they don't really have any basis for that assumption. Einstein simply put in the simplest thing to make the equations predict a stable universe at the current time. It was a fudge factor, not knowledge. Reviving that fudge factor to make the equations predict the expanding universe is still a fudge factor - it is just being used to match a different desired result, based on more recent observations and knowledge. Why that result is occurring is not necessarily due to a constant. Assuming that it is a constant over all space for all time is definitely only a theory.

Again, my point in repeating this is that I am trying to get people to understand that the predictions of the future and the past, based on the BBT, are theoretical, and may not be correct. The BBT cannot disprove an oscillating universe just because it does not predict an oscillating universe in its current form. There are modifications to the BBT that would produce an oscillating universe prediction. We have no way to know whether those modifications are warranted or not, base only on current observations.

So, I only want people to stop writing that something "did" happen or "is" going to happen if that thought is based on the BBT, and instead write that "The BBT predicts that" something happened in the past or will happen in the future. That is the honest way to present current scientific knowledge and thought.
 
The Biblical Tree of Knowledge and Darwin's Tree of Evolution, like the Big Bang Theory ("once upon a time...."), are sage complexities and chaos made cartoonish fairy tale simple for more simple people. Trees, so to speak, of Complexity and Chaos exist, really exist in superpositions, but no one is going to find any one of them in any local-relative kind of woodland anywhere whatsoever.

Did that ever stop a lot of people, including many who should know better, from looking hard in the woodwork of reality for a relative cartoon?! Not on your life!
 
Last edited:
Helio, responding to my terminology distinguishing between "theory" and "observation", I don't call the CMBR a "theory" because it is observed. What is causing it is not known for sure, but the assumption that it was caused by the whole backstory of the BBT is basically a theory.
But my point is they do call Inflation a "theory" because it is an augmentation of BBT and not a tenet of it. Whereas the early prediction for the CMBR was never considered as a theory but a necessary predicted tenet for it. I am only addressing the use of labels, which helps understand the distinction between what is observable and what may only be observed, perhaps someday, indirectly, similar to our inability to ever "observe" a black hole, which by definition, is impossible, yet we do observe them indirectly.

And, inflation is a theory, and Dark Energy is a theory, because neither is really an observation. They are both concepts that have been adopted and adapted to try to explain observations. But, we really only infer these concepts from observations, and those concepts may or may not be the actual causes.
Agreed. DE is a theory because it is far more than the range for the cosmological constant. It came about only when acceleration of all the mass/spacetime cosmos. Those Type 1a studies that were used to find the acceleration could prove to be less than accurate, though time for that is fleeting, apparently.

And, if they are the actual causes, they may not be constants. They may be variable over time or location in space.
Right. Look at Lemaitre's original work and you will see his plot for the expansion rate to be variable, though he predicted a far more linear result in modern times. It's my limited understanding that DE is treated as we treat a sum of the forces equation. As the density of the universe diminishes due to expansion, then the DE force on spacetime, even if constant, will become a greater and greater net force. That works in the math, but what is DE? Too little is known.

Even the BBT messes with what forces were in effect at different times in the past. It may or may not be correct in that, but it is already changing physics over time.
Is anyone saying Lemaitre was wrong, or more importantly, the FLRW model is wrong?

No theory can ever be proven, but they can be falsified. The reason BBT is prominent is only because it has overcome all challenges.... so far.
There are modifications to the BBT that would produce an oscillating universe prediction. We have no way to know whether those modifications are warranted or not, base only on current observations.
IMO, BBT can't touch an oscillating model because BBT never gets to the origin of the universe, only what happened after the origin during its expansion period, which continues today.

But an oscillating Universe, to be a theory, must be based on objective evidence and make clean predictions that aren't wishy-washy. I can't even imagine what that would look like. Otherwise, it is no better than pseudo-science or worse, hand-waving. At least in the magesteria of science. It's an interesting view point, however, in philosophy and, perhaps, religion. As I noted, the early cosmologists, perhaps many today, seem to favor this supposition.

IMO, I see such things as can-kickers. Let's avoid a creation moment for the Universe by saying there was one before it, then one before it. It's turtles all the way down. A multiverse, however, does have some significant mathematical support for it, but still lacks the very thing Galileo was told (1616) he would have to provide to win the Church over to Copernicus --- "Necessary Demonstration".

BTW, Galileo produced some powerful mathematical work to argue that tides proved Earth orbited the Sun, or close to it. But the physics proved him wrong. This, and his cheap shot at the Pope, perhaps unintentionally, cost him dearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
IMO, BBT can't touch an oscillating model because BBT never gets to the origin of the universe, only what happened after the origin during its expansion period, which continues today.

Helio, I just don't seem to be able to get across to you the concept that the backward extrapolation of the universe's apparent expansion does NOT have to go all the way back to some origin point in order to have an oscillation. The concept I am trying to get you to understand is that the actual conditions might depart from that backward extrapolation and even reverse while the universe is still quite large. It all depends on what you do with the free parameters in the equations.

Perhaps you are saying that anything that does not go back to almost a single point in space is not "the BBT", and that therefore, any modification that reverses things before getting there is not "the BBT", but rather something else? If it doesn't have a "bang", then it isn't the BBT? But, "BBT" is just slang for the "Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter" theory, and all I am doing is showing you that another formulation for Lambda could produce an oscillating universe, rather than a bang from almost a single point in space.

If that is what you are saying, then please consider that it is the name, not the math or physics, that we are arguing about.

I am NOT saying that the universe must have oscillated, or that I have a theory that shows that it oscillates. I am just saying that an LCDM theory does not necessarily require that there were not and could never be any oscillations of the universe. The universe we observe now could simply be in an expansion part of an oscillation with a very long period - conceptually and "mathematically" in so far as the parameters of the LCDM model are really "known" from observations.

Calling it the "Big Bang Theory" seems to have blocked thinking about a lot of potential solutions.
 
The Big Bang Theory will stay as a theory.

Putting an age to the universe is a mistake without any form of evidence.

We know we cannot create of destroy matter.

So, research should be focused on how matter keeps cycling.

Some scientists keep moving the goal posts through history in time and space.

Yes, we do have images at 13.4 B yrs.
And scientist put an age of the universe at 13.8 B yrs.
400 million years to make billions of galaxies.
Work that one out.

NASA answer is this.
During those early years' time and space was different.
 

Latest posts