No Big Bang?

[rodheadlee]

New measurements from the James Webb Telescope and the Hubble telescope confirm that the universe is expanding it different rates. Does this negate the Big Bang? Perhaps you science Wizards could read the article and comment on it for this lowly carpenter. Thank you.

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-telescope-confirms-there-is-something-seriously-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-universe#xenforo-comments-20185

[The Nehor]

It doesn’t negate the Big Bang. In theory it could but it is unlikely.

This is part of the ongoing search for the Hubble constant or the rate of expansion of the Universe. The cosmic background radiation gave one measurement (lowest), Cepheid variable stars gave another (highest), and a recent study of red giants was hoped to be a tie-breaker but came out in the middle.

So what does this mean?

It could be that we have something wrong about the stars in question and how they work. This is very possible. We are only able to study one star up close and it isn’t a Cepheid variable or a red giant (not yet anyways).

It could be that we are missing some factor that is influencing our measurements. This is sadly often the result when something that sounds exciting comes up. I remember when there was a measurement that seemed to negate the speed of light constant. They published their data and they and others spent a lot of time trying to figure out if they missed something. They did just miss something. I hope it is not that in this care because BORING!

It could be that we have something wrong in our model of the Universe which may or may not impact the idea of the Big Bang. The former is possible and the latter is possible but unlikely.

For those who imagine that there is a scientific orthodoxy trying to stifle this kind of thing you have a bad model of how the scientific community works. Many are giddy. When something isn’t doing what it is supposed to be doing that means we are missing something and lots of people really want to know what that is. Remember these people are HUGE NERDS! They are generally pretty cautious about these things but they hope it is something big.

Edited March 15, 2024 by The Nehor

[rodheadlee]

Thank you!

[jcake]

No expert here, but have read of the multi-verse theory that is of interest to many.  It can be interesting to read about this expanding universe concept that might allow for a fit to certain religious views that would almost seem to require the possibility of unending growth. Fun to thin about, anyway.

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

... Perhaps you science Wizards could read the article and comment on it for this lowly carpenter. ...

In mortality, Jesus, Lord of the Universe, was a carpenter, Rod.  Don't sell yourself short. The below link is apropos of absolutely nothing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, but I thought of it as I was composing this response, so ...
 

Quote

 

... If you are lonely, please know you can find comfort. If you are discouraged, please know you can find hope. If you are poor in spirit, please know you can be strengthened. If you feel you are broken, please know you can be mended.

In Nazareth, the narrow road,

That tires the feet and steals the breath,

Passes the place where once abode

The Carpenter of Nazareth.

And up and down the dusty way

The village folk would often wend;

And on the bench, beside Him, lay

Their broken things for Him to mend.

The maiden with the doll she broke,

The woman with the broken chair,

The man with broken plough, or yoke,

Said, “Can you mend it, Carpenter?”

And each received the thing he sought,

In yoke, or plough, or chair, or doll;

The broken thing which each had brought

Returned again a perfect whole.

So, up the hill the long years through,

With heavy step and wistful eye,

The burdened souls their way pursue,

Uttering each the plaintive cry:

“O Carpenter of Nazareth,

This heart, that’s broken past repair,

This life, that’s shattered nigh to death,

Oh, can You mend them, Carpenter?”

And by His kind and ready hand,

His own sweet life is woven through

Our broken lives, until they stand

A New Creation—“all things new.”

“The shattered [substance] of [the] heart,

Desire, ambition, hope, and faith,

Mould Thou into the perfect part,

O, Carpenter of Nazareth!” ...

 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (May 2006) "Broken Things to Mend, Ensign, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/05/broken-things-to-mend?lang=eng, last accessed March 15, 2024

[Pyreaux]

I read the Big Bang Theory itself was disproven over a decade ago, in String Theory they found multiple trajectories disproving a single, one-time explosion, and instead it actually consists of repeating bangs. Also, there was time before the big bang. So technically the current theory is now different and named different, though people still call it the Big Bang anyway, as its popularly known.

Edited March 16, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Nofear]

One of the most exciting things for science is being wrong! This video does a good lay job of explaining the tension.

https://youtu.be/rVb_opP1qik?si=C7QKD1bZ3WTO_Sj2

[Nofear]

But, having things to figure out doesn't mean we toss out the whole model. First step would be to refine and revise. As it stands, the big bang theory is the only base theory/paradigm that explains all the observational pillars of cosmology: (1) the dark nightsky, (2) elemental abundances, (3) large scale structure, (4) cosmic microwave background, (5) galactic red shifts. Other models like MOND make the news but can only handle a few of the items.

For Latter-day Saints, that there should be revisions to the big bang model(s) isn't surprising. As it stands, the theories only assert understanding of about 95% of what makes up the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are place holders for “something is going on”. Since our theology explicitly asserts that there is more to the universe than the matter we know about, this is not an unsurprising conclusion. Unfortunately we don't have enough knowledge about spirit matter to move it from the philosophical realm of meta physics to scientific hypothesis, at least not yet. Still, I would expect any scientific theory of the cosmos which fails to accommodate spirit matter (and intelligence) must necessarily be incomplete and need revision.

 

[OGHoosier]

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I read the Big Bang Theory itself was disproven over a decade ago, in String Theory they found multiple trajectories disproving a single, one-time explosion, and instead it actually consists of repeating bangs. Also, there was time before the big bang. So technically the current theory is now different and named different, though people still call it the Big Bang anyway, as its popularly known.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't String Theory underperform empirically? I've been seeing rumbles of frustration with it because it is either untestable or routinely fails predictions.

[mfbukowski]

Hmmmm.

No Big Bang, no literal ex nihilo. After all, true religion must be based on true history, right?

🫣

[Nofear]

21 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't String Theory underperform empirically? I've been seeing rumbles of frustration with it because it is either untestable or routinely fails predictions.

It's not that it hasn't passed any tests so much as it struggles to make any testable predictions.

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No Big Bang, no literal ex nihilo. After all, true religion must be based on true history, right?

For the past couple of decades, it has been understood that the Big Bang is not the beginning. It requires some very specific conditions to create our observables and that needs some explanation. Currently a period of inflation prior to the Big Bang is the favored model (and we do see some patterns in the CMB that are consistent with the idea of inflation). But it is also a region that will potentially be forever out of our ability to observationally access.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

Edited March 17, 2024 by Nofear

[Stargazer]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:25 PM, rodheadlee said:

New measurements from the James Webb Telescope and the Hubble telescope confirm that the universe is expanding it different rates. Does this negate the Big Bang? Perhaps you science Wizards could read the article and comment on it for this lowly carpenter. Thank you.

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-telescope-confirms-there-is-something-seriously-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-universe#xenforo-comments-20185

JWST is constantly coming up with jaw-dropping data that have astronomers and astrophysicists buzzing about like paparazzi thinking they just sighted Elvis. I keep track of several YouTube channels run by scientists and science explainers, and I have concluded that at this time our physicists are kids in a candy shop. They don't know what to pick from all the disparate data, yet. And be careful who you listen to.  As Dr. Becky Smethurst says, "JWST misinformation if rife online."

New theories will have to be developed, because in some cases the data seem to do serious damage to the current ones. Seem. I would say, don't get panicky about anything that is being claimed based on JWST data. And the Big Bang is safe, or at least the consensus says so. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here's a quote from the posted article: "The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe." My response? Big whoop. "[S]uggests" suggests that some theories may need revising. So what else is new?

Here's some videos you might find interesting:

• Brian Cox debunked the Big Bang! Wait, what? - by Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder (astrophysicist)
• Did James Webb Prove Big Bang Theory Wrong? Here Are The Facts - by Anton Petrov (science communicator)
• JWST Observations Completely Break Galactic Evolution Models...But Prove Big Bang Correct - Also Anton Petrov
• No, JWST hasn’t shown the Big Bang “didn’t happen” - by Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford (Christ Church)
• JWST shows the early Universe is DIFFERENT than we thought (that's a good thing!) - Also Dr. Becky

Using JWST, they've found everything from enormous deep space structures that were thought "impossible," "dead" galaxies, impossibly huge galaxies, and the list goes on. It's basically time for astrophysicists to start excitedly breaking out their theory generators and going to town with papers submission. It's time to party hearty!

[Stargazer]

On 3/16/2024 at 2:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

I read the Big Bang Theory itself was disproven over a decade ago, in String Theory they found multiple trajectories disproving a single, one-time explosion, and instead it actually consists of repeating bangs. Also, there was time before the big bang. So technically the current theory is now different and named different, though people still call it the Big Bang anyway, as its popularly known.

Nope. The Big Bang is safe, and String Theory is on the ropes. 

Don't trust the breathless science journos who think they've scooped something big. Most of the time they haven't understood what they've been reading.

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, Nofear said:

For the past couple of decades, it has been understood that the Big Bang is not the beginning. It requires some very specific conditions to create our observables and that needs some explanation. Currently a period of inflation prior to the Big Bang is the favored model (and we do see some patterns in the CMB that are consistent with the idea of inflation). But it is also a region that will potentially be forever out of our ability to observationally access.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

No, it's not understood that it's not the beginning. There are theories out there, that's all. 

Stephen Hawking was at the forefront of all this for a long time, and in his last book, published after his death, he makes it very clear that there was no time before the beginning.

Of course, he could have been wrong. But his track record was rather good.

 

Edited March 17, 2024 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

On 3/16/2024 at 9:47 AM, Pyreaux said:

I read the Big Bang Theory itself was disproven over a decade ago, in String Theory they found multiple trajectories disproving a single, one-time explosion, and instead it actually consists of repeating bangs. Also, there was time before the big bang. So technically the current theory is now different and named different, though people still call it the Big Bang anyway, as its popularly known.

The Big Bang theory has better evidence backing it than String theory.

Edited March 18, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

It's not that it hasn't passed any tests so much as it struggles to make any testable predictions.

It is this.

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not understood that it's not the beginning. There are theories out there, that's all. 

Stephen Hawking was at the forefront of all this for a long time, and in his last book, published after his death, he makes it very clear that there was no time before the beginning.

Of course, he could have been wrong. But his track record was rather good.

I know Stephen Hawking used such language (such as in his rather good documentary The Story of Everything). But, the point remains that classically The Big Bang theory can only go back to a point where the universe was extremely hot and extremely dense but still at a finite point in the past (the current visible universe occupied a volume of about a person). Hawking readily admits this. But, Penrose and Hawking also have their Singularity Theorem which classically would have guaranteed a singularity. But ... classically. The scientific community is all but certain that something has to change (ie not classical, but a quantum theory of gravity) and the singularity isn't guaranteed. Even if one sticks to classical relativity, recently Kerr (of Kerr black hole fame) claims that with any degree of rotation singularities don't exist.

The point here is that there is some degree of semantics about what we exactly mean with The Big Bang since there are subtleties and variant models. But basically when one wants to produce a theory where all the subtleties and variants basically produce the observational predictions I pointed out in my earlier post---that all starts at a finite point in the past. Beyond that point is pretty wide open speculation and speculate we do (link, link). As a consequence, the cosmological community has shifted away from trying to make The Big Bang the beginning of everything and limit the scope of the theory to scientifically sound footing*. It is a cultural shift and it's taking time to get everybody on board. I'm trying to do my part in propagating a more reliable/accurate zeitgeist. Hopefully you can get on board with that too.

 

* For example, one can still see photos and such of inflation being part of The Big Bang. However, it is more accurate to separate the two ideas as distinct. Inflationary models are used to set up the conditions necessary for The Big Bang but aren't the only game in town to do so (albeit they are the current favorite).

[longview]

53 minutes ago, Nofear said:

* For example, one can still see photos and such of inflation being part of The Big Bang. However, it is more accurate to separate the two ideas as distinct. Inflationary models are used to set up the conditions necessary for The Big Bang but aren't the only game in town to do so (albeit they are the current favorite).

Inflation refers to the expansion of the "fabric" of space and time (however many dimensions there are), not neccessarily to the speed of objects hurtling away from the figurative "center" of the Big Bang. So the "older" the universe is, the faster the speed of objects at the furthermost distances (relative to our telescopes).

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Stephen Hawking was at the forefront of all this for a long time, and in his last book, published after his death, he makes it very clear that there was no time before the beginning.

Of course, he could have been wrong. But his track record was rather good.

Do you know if Mr. Hawking considered how many more billions of years before the furthermost objects will approach the speed of light? Will this put a limit on the extent of the observable universe? What kind of "red-shifting" will we see on lights coming from objects that are: 1- just inside the boundary; 2- on the boundary; 3- further outside the boundary? What if CMB is something other than a "relic of the Big Bang" ?

[the narrator]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:47 AM, Pyreaux said:

there was time before the big bang.

Space and time are intertwined. Neither existed before the big bang.

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Do you know if Mr. Hawking considered how many more billions of years before the furthermost objects will approach the speed of light?

It's incorrect to frame the large cosmic bodies (like galaxies) increasingly speeding through the universe. Instead, it's better to understand them as largely stationary as the space between cosmic bodies is increasing.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Inflation refers to the expansion of the "fabric" of space and time (however many dimensions there are), not neccessarily to the speed of objects hurtling away from the figurative "center" of the Big Bang. So the "older" the universe is, the faster the speed of objects at the furthermost distances (relative to our telescopes).

I suspect your confusing Hubble's Law (v = H×d), which is a quantified expression of the regular ol' expansion of the universe with inflation. Hubble's Law states that the farther things are the faster they are receding. And, the farther they are, the older they are too. Inflation refers to a very short period (as in really, really, really, etc. short) where the expansion rate was exponential in nature. Inflation was introduced to explain the horizon and flatness problems of cosmology.

2 hours ago, longview said:

Do you know if Mr. Hawking considered how many more billions of years before the furthermost objects will approach the speed of light? Will this put a limit on the extent of the observable universe? What kind of "red-shifting" will we see on lights coming from objects that are: 1- just inside the boundary; 2- on the boundary; 3- further outside the boundary? What if CMB is something other than a "relic of the Big Bang" ?

Don't need Dr. Hawking to answer your question. It is an introductory cosmology question. The Hubble Sphere is the boundary of things things receding at the speed of light. The past light cone is the region of things that we can now see. The event horizon is the region of things that we will eventually be able to see in the future. Below is an image of the various cosmology boundaries we talk about. It was a couple of years ago and some of the constants are a little different than the one's I used but they are basically good. Though it is counter-intuitive, there are objects outside the Hubble Sphere but within our past light cone. That is, we can now, currently, observe objects that were/are receding faster than the speed of light (the speed of light limit only applies to objects moving within the fabric of spacetime and not to spacetime itself).

[Nofear]

24 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Neither existed before the big bang.

This is the very misconception I am trying to disillusion people of. In our current conception of the Big Bang, it does not refer to the beginning of space and time.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not understood that it's not the beginning. There are theories out there, that's all. 

Yes, but you have to be careful of the word “theory”. Theory is simultaneously the highest level any scientific “rule” for the universe can reach (theory of gravity for example) can reach but can also mean that weird fringe idea half a dozen people hold. Saying evolution is only a theory sounds demeaning until you recognize that there isn’t some higher level it can be promoted to.

[the narrator]

43 minutes ago, Nofear said:

This is the very misconception I am trying to disillusion people of. In our current conception of the Big Bang, it does not refer to the beginning of space and time.

It does unless one wishes to radically redefine time as some sort of logical sequence that is entirely distinct from and not yet correlated to space-time. So, sure, there was a "prior" to the existence of space time very soon after the Big Bang, but it is as much "time" as yellow is the smell of corn.

Edited March 18, 2024 by the narrator