Big Bang..not so much?

[xelasnave]

There seems to be data coming in from the JWT that shows very well developed gallaxies that are not consistent with expectations in that these gallaxies display development that just should not happen if our current model is correct...so any views?

Personally I have never liked the big bang theory but just because I don't like it has not seen it abandoned ...however it now seems the Big Bang Theory has failed with its predictions and we all know what that means...however it has failed with predictions before notably the prediction re lithium and still hung on in there...

Is there someone out there developing a new and more reliable model...where do we go from here?


Alex

[glend (Glen)]

The Big Bang theory simply arose as a convenience due to our lack of understanding, or ability to understand, the complexities of the real situation. It is a common problem for mankind, to assign some construct to something we are incapable of understanding. For one, I am completely at ease with not knowing.
I am sure there is some young PHD out there somewhere trying to come up with a new model, or tweak the old one, to fit the JWT information. But does it really matter, in terms of our existence? I am not convinced it does.

[leon]

But does it really matter, in terms of our existence? I am not convinced it does.


You raised a good point Glen, and I do agree with you, whatever we want to call it it really doesn't impact our existence, we are not here long enough anyway.

Leon

[xelasnave]

It is such a pleasure to know that there are at least sensible humans who I can call close friends..thank you for your wisdom...

I find I get frustrated with the assertion that such and such happened at T +.0003452 seconds whatever or the reliance on the "Theory of Inflation " which seems to have no observational support and put forward to save the Big Bang model as I understand the matter.

Moreover I get annoyed at those folk who proclaim that they now know as if the thing was set in concrete...I guess it is belief in general that I have enormous issues with..since I adopted the notion of not holding a belief in anything what so ever and in the place of belief merely assigning "levels of confidence" I see so many things much differently and I suspect now enjoy a more rational approach to most everything.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by glend

... But does it really matter, in terms of our existence? ...

It doesn't.. because we as a species (and that applies to others as well) evolved to simply survive long enough to pass our genes to next generations..

But, as a bonus, we have intelligence.. and it would have been nice to know.. or at least to try to think about other things in out turbulent times...

[JA]

Originally Posted by bojan

It doesn't.. because we as a species (and that applies to others as well) evolved to simply survive long enough to pass our genes to next generations..

That's it -
The true meaning of life....... LIFE

Best
JA

[bojan]

BTW...

I found the Sabine Hossenfelder lectures on the subject very interesting..

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

BTW...

I found the Sabine Hossenfelder lectures on the subject very interesting..

I think I have watched most of her stuff as I really like her approach and typical of much of my viewing.
We are so very lucky that just sitting with a smart phone you get to see this stuff...it has been years since I watched any TV.

Alex.

[ChrisD (Chris)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

There seems to be data coming in from the JWT that shows very well developed gallaxies that are not consistent with expectations in that these gallaxies display development that just should not happen if our current model is correct...so any views?

Personally I have never liked the big bang theory but just because I don't like it has not seen it abandoned ...however it now seems the Big Bang Theory has failed with its predictions and we all know what that means...however it has failed with predictions before notably the prediction re lithium and still hung on in there...

Is there someone out there developing a new and more reliable model...where do we go from here?


Alex

Probably worth watching this:

Dr. Becky

Chris

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

Probably worth watching this:

Dr. Becky

Chris

Thank you Chris.

Alex

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Is there someone out there developing a new and more reliable model...where do we go from here?

But science is not hopping from one prophet to the next. It’s about collecting data and refining models. The BBT was born from observations, and in due time will be refined to account for new ones.

If that weren’t how science works, an equally valid thread title might be “Principia Mathematica… not so much?”

[Stonius (Markus)]

If you take the current rate of expansion and perform regression analysis you end up with the big bang. BUT this makes the rather big assumption that the universe's expansion has always accelerated at that rate.


Maybe the universe expanded differently when it was younger? Maybe the laws of physics change over time? There's no reason they have to be static. We assume that they are, but over timescales that big, could we detect the difference? (Or maybe we're just beginning to, with the JWST).


I'm the opposite of that guy from the A-Team. I *like it when a plan doesn't come together - because that's where the interesting stuff happens.


:-)

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Steffen

But science is not hopping from one prophet to the next. It’s about collecting data and refining models. The BBT was born from observations, and in due time will be refined to account for new ones.

If that weren’t how science works, an equally valid thread title might be “Principia Mathematica… not so much?”

I never suggested hoping from one prophet to the next..where did you get such an idea?

You seem over sensitive to a reasonable question that is after all in the general chat section..so rather than putting up your curious response how about some meaningful input....and to extend the title to Princiia Mathematica is no more than an emotive appeal to suggest that I am a rat bag..the mud you throw now covers you.

I agree entirely as to the imporfance of observations and that is why I could never understand why the Theory of Inflation was taken on board..as far as I am aware there are no observations that would remotely suggest such a model has merit.

Try harder.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Stonius

If you take the current rate of expansion and perform regression analysis you end up with the big bang. BUT this makes the rather big assumption that the universe's expansion has always accelerated at that rate.


Maybe the universe expanded differently when it was younger? Maybe the laws of physics change over time? There's no reason they have to be static. We assume that they are, but over timescales that big, could we detect the difference? (Or maybe we're just beginning to, with the JWST).


I'm the opposite of that guy from the A-Team. I *like it when a plan doesn't come together - because that's where the interesting stuff happens.


:-)

Sensible input and I thank you for your contribution.

Alex

[xelasnave]

I think one thing that is overlooked yet you could think as significant...when the Big Bang Theory was presented it was thought that the Universe was merely the Milky Way and the hints of othef galaxies were thought to be within the Milky Way...now the Big Bang is attributed to creating a Universe literally billions of times of the universe the subject of the Milky Way...and yet I have not seen one comment upon this..
The Big Bang is built with science but it would seem that the cosmology was already decided before they went looking for the science..that is why the original critisms were that it smacked of a religious imperative to find a scientific point of creation...I can not go into it here but it you research the matter you should be able to find out the lay of the land immediately prior to the Big Bang presentation...

AND I don't know much that is true but nothing I have said is not essentially a fact.

Alex

[glend (Glen)]

Humans have a history of "finding" solutions to perceived problems, which are rooted in their own feable understanding of the world, universe, etc. History is littered with supposed advances, which in hindsight are viewed in horror, or laughable at best (Medicine is a good example). Whatever "Truth" is out there, in relation to what we call the Universe, we are likely just following the latest fad thinking. While it has relevance for all newly minted PHD candidates, seeking glory for themselves and tenure, it is likely just another wave of self importance, which will be looked back on by future humans (assuming they survive) with amusement.

[ChrisD (Chris)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I think one thing that is overlooked yet you could think as significant...when the Big Bang Theory was presented it was thought that the Universe was merely the Milky Way and the hints of othef galaxies were thought to be within the Milky Way...now the Big Bang is attributed to creating a Universe literally billions of times of the universe the subject of the Milky Way...and yet I have not seen one comment upon this..
The Big Bang is built with science but it would seem that the cosmology was already decided before they went looking for the science..that is why the original critisms were that it smacked of a religious imperative to find a scientific point of creation...I can not go into it here but it you research the matter you should be able to find out the lay of the land immediately prior to the Big Bang presentation...

AND I don't know much that is true but nothing I have said is not essentially a fact.

Alex

"Galactic" nebulas were first identified as separate galaxies in 1912, American astronomer Vesto Slipher observed that the light from these "galactic" Nebula was strongly redshifted, indicating that they was moving away from the Milky Way and so not part of it. This theory was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1923 using Cepheid variable stars in the Andromeda Galaxy.

The big bang theory was first postulated in 1927 by the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître.

It was known that other galaxies existed before the big bang theory was first postulated.

Chris

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

"Galactic" nebulas were first identified as separate galaxies in 1912, American astronomer Vesto Slipher observed that the light from these "galactic" Nebula was strongly redshifted, indicating that they was moving away from the Milky Way and so not part of it. This theory was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1923 using Cepheid variable stars in the Andromeda Galaxy.

The big bang theory was first postulated in 1927 by the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître.

It was known that other galaxies existed before the big bang theory was first postulated.

Chris

Thanks Chris.
It is a great day when you learn something new.

More so to find out that you have been wrong in your understanding of something.

I was wrong as I did think the Big Bang Theory produced in effect a Universe the size of the Milky Way but if other galaxies were known to exist then that understanding is already wrong...

I wonder how big they thought the Universe was in 1927?

Thanks again
Alex

[ChrisD (Chris)]

I sometimes think of a line from the character Robort Ford played by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the series Westworld:

“Mistakes” is the word you’re too embarrassed to use. You ought not to be. You’re a product of a trillion of them. Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool: the mistake.

Chris

[bojan]

" Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool: the mistake.... "

Good one, but the missing bit here is:
"... which caused such a sufficient damage to affected individual.. to the extend that it could not pass it's DNA to the next generation"...