Posted on 09/15/2022 12:56:44 PM PDT by OneVike
Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” [Update: Kirkpatrick has protested Lerner’s handling of this quotation. See Note below.]Eric J. Lerner, “The Big Bang didn’t happen” at IAI.TV (August 11, 2022)
Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.
Now, Lerner is the author of a book called The Big Bang Never Happened (1992) but — while that makes him an interested party — it doesn’t make him wrong. He will be speaking at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in London (September 17–18, 2022) sponsored by the Institute for Art and Ideas (IAI), as a participant in the “Cosmology and the Big Bust” debate.
The upcoming debate, which features philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg and Yale astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan, along with Lerner, is premised as follows:
The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.
Do we have to give up the theory of cosmic inflation and seek a radical alternative? Might alternative theories like the Big Bounce, or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are such alternatives merely sticking plasters to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang altogether?
Here’s a debate on this general topic from last year’s festival (but without JWST data). It features theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, along with Ekeberg and particle physicist Sam Henry.
So, yes, it’s been a serious topic of discussion for a while. Now, what to make of Eric Lerner’s approach? Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon offered Mind Matters News some thoughts and a potential solution:
The current thinking is that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis era produced 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by weight) and a smattering of Lithium, but not much else. Then after 300 thousand years, the universe cooled down enough to produce atoms, and gravitational attraction slowly, slowly built up stars. The early ones were big enough to explode, and the shock waves sent through the hydrogen gas caused pockets to form that began star-making in earnest. But it still took 500 million years to get enough stars for a galaxy. Now the earlier a galaxy forms, the further back in time and the further away it is from astronomers today, and the further away it is the faster it is moving away from us. This movement causes the light to be redshifted. So robust is this relationship, that astronomers replace “time” with “red-shift”. But the Hubble Space Telescope could only see visible light, and those early galaxies were so red-shifted they were only “visible” in the infra-red, which is where the James Webb telescope shines. So one of the goals of the James Webb telescope was to see the earliest galaxies, and indeed, they’re seeing a lot.
So what does this mean for the standard model?
Theorists have an answer. Lot’s of clumpy dark matter to get the Hydrogen gas to clump early. Which leads to the question, “why isn’t the dark matter clumpy now?”
I don’t have endurance to run down every rabbit trail cosmologists propose. Instead, I propose that the first stars were not made of Hydrogen, they were made of ice. The Big Bang synthesized abundant C and O which combined with H to form H20, CO2, CH4 etc. These gases freeze relatively early in the universe time frame, so clumping was not gravitational but physico-chemical, the same way snowflakes form. So we didn’t have to wait 500 million years for snowflakes to clump, it happen very quickly once the universe cooled below the freezing point. Hence James Webb sees lots of red-shifted galaxies from the early universe.
The paper on that (and maybe the prediction of what James Webb would find?) is in my open-access paper in Communications of the Blythe Institute in 2021.
That’s one possible solution. We know it’s science when it’s always posing challenges.
This sometimes comes up: Could the universe have always existed? The problem is, if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, everything that could possibly happen must already have happened an infinite number of times — including that we don’t exist and never did. But we know we do exist. As Robert J. Marks has pointed out, playing with infinity quickly results in absurdity. To do science, we must accept that some events are real and not mutually contradictory. So we can assume that the universe got started but we are a little less sure just now how that happened.
“Again, reputable scientists themselves beikleve the possibility.”
A belief in the possibility. You made a cold flat statement which they do not make.
Well said!
“What is wrong is DECADES of stating, as if fact, that the Big Bang was true.
One should always state when a theory is a theory, and WHY it’s a theory. “
That is BBT! You are the one misstating the facts.
They did call it a theory. They did explain why it is a theory.
What they didn’t do was tie you down, connect your brain to their database and click the download button.
“It’s spoken of as if it’s a proven fact”
If someone includes the word “theory” they concede that it is not fact.
The “climate change” folks omit the word because they are afraid of alternative information and seek political power through their faulty assumptions
Those that didn’t get past 8th grade science believe E=MC^2 does not apply to chemical reactions.
“So does that tell the universe is at least 28 billion years old, give or take a year.”
That post tells me something about you!
Don’t let him get to you. He’s a very sick man; a hate filled pervert who refuses to condemn abortion and even got defensive of some very sick things. There’s a dark soul behind his hateful behavior.
“another example is the “Theory” of evolution”
Friend, why not just accept your debate victory when someone says “theory”?
If that’s your concern, you win the argument by default every time.
It doesn’t mean you are right, but you win the argument as to whether something is factual.
Looking at my bookshelf I see books titled ‘Electromagnetic Theory’, ‘Theoretical Mechanics’, ‘Control Theory’, ‘Optimization Theory’, ‘Automata Theory’, ‘Theory of Semiconductor Devices’, ‘Chaos Theory’ etc. to name a few.
Using your understanding of the definition of theory vs fact. Given that you are using a computer and the Internet are they fact or theory or something else?
Every school I went to insisted they were facts
Including college.
( I gave them all hell about only being theories as I’ve been a Christian since 6th grade )
California
Oregon
Washington
Ymmv.
“Every school I went to insisted they were facts
Including college.”
Which college? What major?
It is not possible to refer to a “theory” as “fact” so anyone who claimed thus is contradicting themselves. Again, you win. They may keep talking, but as soon as the word “theory” is uttered, it cannot also be fact (unless rigorously proven, which is difficult to do)
Excellently said!
My theory is a lot simpler and can never be disproven - God created the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On the other hand, is it also true that your theory can never be proved?
No. You posted a baseless rant because you are confused about how the world works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This personal criticism back and forth reminds me of a humorous comment some Freeper made the other day in response to an insulting remark. He said, paraphrasing. I’m feeling kind of down this morning but were I to see your obituary I’m certain it would cheer me up!
The problem is not usually the evidence, it’s a person’s worldview or presuppositions. You might say we all have the same evidence but can reach different conclusions based on what we believe - our worldview. These scientists are looking at evidence - they are just reaching a conclusion that is based on their naturalistic expectations. It’s hard to examine your own view - but it is possible. Admitting you have one, and thus have a sort of bias pro or con regarding a certain subject is often a start. But usually people are not that honest or maybe perceptive. And some people hate the idea of God and purposely work to oppose that view. Most, but not all scientists hold a naturalistic view of origins. Some believe in a Creator and of course some are not sure. When expected evidence contradicts what scientists actually find then it tends to challenge their worldview. It’s very common for anyone to find a ‘rescuing devise’ which allows them to keep their worldview. Of course, because we’re human, egos can often be on the line regarding who’s smartest, nobody’s fool and all that. In the case of God’s existance and evidence to support or contradict, it it’s easy to see how the battle is, and has been, engaged for all of human history. For me, I’m sticking with a Creator who made it all. When I see the images from the JWST I think of the passage in Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handy work…” To me it shows his infinite qualities. It’s evidence that backs up his claims. Others see it as a pretty accident and wonder how it all came about. So, now you know my worldview ;- )
The BBT does not posit a beginning. It posits a point in time after the beginning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reference to “after the beginning” in your second sentence appears to contradict your first sentence since it posits a beginning.
They found him. He lives in Higgs bosons.
They have done that. The Big Bang occurred at a place where there is no coordinates and so no way to describe it.
Newton is my favorite scientist-theologian. He summed it up with the epigram, “Nature’s Laws are God’s Thoughts.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.