JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE SHOWS BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN? WAIT…

Mind Matters News ^ | 8/13/22 | Rob Webb

[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.

[TexasGator]

“True, but doesn’t apply if the light doesn’t get to us.”

The light gets to us.

[OneVike]

Your knowledge of theology is so lacking I won’t even respond to you again.

[TexasGator]

“Your knowledge of theology is so lacking I won’t even respond to you again.”

Whatever rocks your boat.

[minnesota_bound]

If you look up at the night sky away from city lights you can see nebula that spells out: B I G B A N G

[RFEngineer]

“These people have made very grandiose claims about the nature of the universe and how it evolved”

So what? Why engage with someone who refuses to acknowledge what a theory is and is not?

If you have a faith-based point of view then there isn’t much basis for a discussion much less an argument with someone who approaches the universe through the lens of the big bang theory.

It is true that “government scientists” have little credibility these days. I share your dislike of having to fund “govt approved science”

Especially climate change clowns. The do have a sweet gig. They just fake the numbers until they meet the grant funders wishes.

Meanwhile I always wonder why the temperature is nearly never the “average temp” and what conclusions we should draw from that.

[Bullish]

Higgs should probably take them out and wash them I’ll bet.

[BroJoeK]

Reily: "“Anyway, theories are proposed,”

TexasGator: "Hypotheses are proposed and tested."

Strictly speaking, a theory is a confirmed hypothesis, so how was the Big Bang hypothesis confirmed?
Two observations are often listed: 1) the expansion of the Universe implies a moment of singularity and, 2) cosmic background radiation is said to be "left over" from the Big Bang.

But to make the whole idea work, scientists have been forced to invent, concoct, "imagineer", fantasize -- take your pick -- unobserved "dark matter", "dark energy", faster than light-speed "inflation", "multi-verses" and more, suggesting more a house of cards than a solid scientific theory.

Now come some new observations which seem to contradict what Big Bang "Theory" predicted, so are these the needles to burst the Big Bang balloon, the straws that break the camel's back, or are they just minor discrepancies requiring minor adjustments to otherwise valid calculations?

We don't know, but we do know the beauty of Big Bang is its simplicity -- everyone can visualize a "let there be light" moment -- and any replacement theory is likely to be far more complicated and less visualizable.

Theologically, I don't think it really matters, still it would be a shame to lose our "let there be light" moment, but in the meantime, Big Bang should be referred to as unconfirmed hypothesis, not a strongly confirmed theory, imho.

[nagant]

The light gets to us.
~~~~

Which relativity class do they teach that in?

[BereanBrain]

You cannot logically conclude i cannot answer the question - I could choose not to.

The reason I choose not to answer is that when someone is not making a logical argument, there is no need to go any farther.

Neither side learns anything from discussions not based on logic. On the other hand, arguments where both sides use logic can yield results. Like iron sharpening iron Clay won’t sharpen iron, it dulls it.

Here’s a good example - https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

[Reily]

The Standard Model for Particle Physics can be described as a hodge-podge of ‘patches’ but so far, its predictions - W and Z bosons, gluon, top quark and charm quark, and predicted many of their properties before these particles were observed. The predictions were experimentally confirmed with good precision. So, it continues to have its usefulness. It can’t answer five issues - Gravity, Dark Matter(?), Dark Energy(?), neutrino masses, matter-antimatter asymmetry. Supersymmetry, String Theory, etc. haven’t made in real headway. So, it can continue to be described as a working model\theory in spite of its ugliness. This may be how BBT works out. Gets patched, chugs along until something is found that makes it ludicrous to keep patching. This how science works. The thing with particle physics and cosmology is the math\theory precedes the experiments. Experiments some cases are approaching impossible to do in any practical way. Could that mean the math\theory is wrong? Maybe? Again, that’s science. It doesn’t end, there will be always a better more complete explanation out there. It’s not dogma!

And yes, the Dark twins may or may not exist! Again, that’s what makes it exciting!

[Reily]

Still not answering!

[TexasGator]

“Which relativity class do they teach that in?”

The one you didn’t take!

[Lazamataz]

How fast it is receeding has no impact on the speed of light coming to us.

This is correct. It does, however, alter the wavelength (frequency).

[TexasGator]

“This is correct. It does, however, alter the wavelength (frequency).”

Yes. The amount of redshift provides important information.

[TexasGator]

I just found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04

[BereanBrain]

Your Question was

“Given that you are using a computer and the Internet are they fact or theory or something else?”

Your question is itself a logic fault in the discussion, specifically in the form of Ignoratio elenchi.

Furthermore, you quoted a bunch of impressive book titles, to somehow prop up your side. That’s another logical fallacy, it’s called “appeal to authority”. The fallacy is that you MAY (or may not) be an authority, but that does not prove/disprove any point. That’s an argument NOT based in science.

I predict the response will be either (1) ad nauseam or (2) ad hominem which i predict I will successfully ignore.

You can find what these fallacies are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies if you are so inclined.

[Reily]

Try again!

[nagant]

Thanks.

[TexasGator]

“Thanks.”

You are welcome.