JWST may just have trounced the Big Bang theory

Eduardo Ficaria

Eduardo Ficaria

prosaparte
Joined
Aug 2, 2022
Messages
12
Location
Spain
The James Webb Space Telescope is already giving incredible results... with astounding consecuences. For instance, it seems that the JWST may just have blown out of the water the Big Bang theory after showing remote galaxies that don't fit at all with the predictions derived from that theory. Here's an article explaining all this matter. Let's say these observations are confirmed, and the Big Bang theory gets scratched out: there are going to be consequences, not just regarding our understanding of the universe, but our position in it. So, let's speculate with all the ramifications this may end having, from social to religious ones, even in scifi fiction.

I'll open this debate by saying that in the christian world, where they accommodated quite well to the idea of an origin for the whole universe "demonstrated" by science, there's going to be a bit of head scratching to say the least.
 
Last edited:
It seems to suggests that the current Universe will expand forever and eventually , all the galaxies and stars will die , nova , collapse into black holes In the end, everything will go to darkness. But that still leaves the question of how things actually began and could this happen again? and if so, what is the actually mechanism whereby it does?
 
BAYLOR said:
It seems to suggests that the current Universe will expand forever and eventually , all the galaxies and stars will die , nova , collapse into black holes In the end, everything will go to darkness. But that still leaves the question of how things actually began and could this happen again? and if so, what is the actually mechanism whereby it does?
Click to expand...
No, these discoveries also seem to disprove the presumed expansion phenomenon altogether, it just doesn't fit at all with what's has been observed through the JWST. But yes, your question stands, although with an important twist: did our universe ever "began" at all? Maybe it's just some sort of a boundless space-continuum ocean of energy, broadly speaking of course.
 
In many ways, modern cosmology has been fitting in observations to match with the interpretation of the red shifts Hubble (the person) observed on distant galaxies. It feels a bit like a house of cards to me. Wonder what will replace it if it all comes tumbling down.
 
AllanR said:
In many ways, modern cosmology has been fitting in observations to match with the interpretation of the red shifts Hubble (the person) observed on distant galaxies. It feels a bit like a house of cards to me. Wonder what will replace it if it all comes tumbling down.
Click to expand...

Indeed, what will replace it ?
 
AllanR said:
In many ways, modern cosmology has been fitting in observations to match with the interpretation of the red shifts Hubble (the person) observed on distant galaxies. It feels a bit like a house of cards to me. Wonder what will replace it if it all comes tumbling down.
Click to expand...
For starters, in the directly related scientific communities there's going to be some reckoning, I presume. Just think about the millions poured on trying to demonstrate things like dark matter or dark energy, and now JWST may have proved them wrong. Heads will roll, and relevant seats will change owners. This is important to realize, since the article points to already existing alternative explanations to what was attributed to a supposed Big Bang. When those who only favored one theory over any other are replace with more open or fresh mindsets, we'll get to see the validity of those other theories. But this is on the science (and economic) side of things, what about any other implications?
 
Eduardo Letavia said:
For starters, in the directly related scientific communities there's going to be some reckoning, I presume. Just think about the millions poured on trying to demonstrate things like dark matter or dark energy, and now JWST may have proved them wrong. Heads will roll, and relevant seats will change owners. This is important to realize, since the article points to already existing alternative explanations to what was attributed to a supposed Big Bang. When those who only favored one theory over any other are replace with more open or fresh mindsets, we'll get to see the validity of those other theories. But this is on the science (and economic) side of things, what about any other implications?
Click to expand...

At one point in history , the Steady State explanation for the Universe was the accepted theory.
 
BAYLOR said:
At one point in history , the Steady State explanation for the Universe was the accepted theory.
Click to expand...
I kind of remembered that theory, but I've checked in Wikipedia and in this article to remind of what was that one about. It still has the same problem as the Big Bang model: they deal with an idea of space expansion that the JWST may have now proven false. I won't argue against recycling some other notions from these two theories, but we need others that don't make use of the expansion phenomenon at all. I remember reading about another possible explanation of why galaxies seem like they're rushing from us, and today I've seen a couple of videos (this one from The Royal Institution channel, and this other from the PBS Space Time channel) about the hypothesis that our universe could be the inside of a mind-bogglingly massive black hole which, in turn, could be inside another universe that is another even greater black hole... and so on. This is a curious theory that, although it also tries to explain the expansion, maybe it could be reworked to explain the galactic motions without the need of that notion. And yes, there's the thing about the background radiation, which maybe could be explained as something naturally found within an hypermassive black hole?
 
I'm taking this article with multiple grains of salt. I would have liked to see a little more about an alternate theory; something more than my theory explains everything. I was a little put off by the trip into conspiracy theories and the blatant promotion of the author's company, which promises to create viable commercial fusion energy sources based on his theory.

There very well be a much better alternative to the big bang theory, but the style of and information presented by this article did not convince me.
 
Eduardo Letavia said:
JWST may just have blown out of the water the Big Bang theory after showing remote galaxies that don't fit at all with the predictions derived from that theory.
Click to expand...
Not really - it's underlined that we don't properly understand galaxy formation, which to be honest is something that has been creeping up for a long time.
 
Bluntly, this is a BS article written by someone promoting his own theories with "click-bait" headlines.

If you follow some of the links and look at what people really said, there is nothing much about discrediting the big bang theory. The link to the "panic" article seems particularly bogus, because when you read the actual abstract, the tone is not "end of big bang theory as we know it" but more, "hey look at the amazing data and doesn't it fit nicely with current models of XYZ". The big, spectacular quote of Alison Kirkpatrick, University of Kansas, Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” takes you on to twitter where Kirkpatrick clarifies that she was referring to the current theories of galaxy formation:

Absolutely not! Galaxy evolution is actually a problem completely separate from the Big Bang. You can have a Big Bang and yet create no galaxies. One does not imply the other. I was referring to our current understanding of galaxy evolution.
Click to expand...

That denial/clarification was prompted by someone asking her about her statement, having followed the article claiming no big bang, so the author has pulled together any old rubbish, taken out of context, to support his pet theory with an approach that I regard as utterly disgraceful and unprofessional as a scientist.

If you start following the links to real scientific articles, they can be loosely summarised as "hey, wow, look at all the fantastic new data, that's going to take time to assimilate and might alter our thinking on some things."

Maybe it will turn out that the big bang theory is wrong, or inadequate, and realistically I think that is almost inevitable on some level because it's based on one set of evidence and as more data is gathered it will need to adapt. At present the JWST data seems to be at the "tweak and change" level, not abandon and start again

As a final thought - if it does turn out that we need a replacement for the big bang theory, whatever replaces it might appear to be utterly different but it will probably be approximated very nicely by the big bang theory under certain conditions. :giggle:
 
I have to apologize for having fallen into sensationalism. Certainly JWST still has a long way to go, and all the data it'll gather will take time to be analyzed and properly understood. But, regarding alternative theories, I think I just found my personal favorite in the black hole universe hypothesis. It's kind of metal.
 
Eduardo Letavia said:
I have to apologize for having fallen into sensationalism. Certainly JWST still has a long way to go, and all the data it'll gather will take time to be analyzed and properly understood. But, regarding alternative theories, I think I just found my personal favorite in the black hole universe hypothesis. It's kind of metal.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you got a very good discussion going .:cool:
 
Biskit said:
Bluntly, this is a BS article written by someone promoting his own theories with "click-bait" headlines.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's an article written by one guy who references only his own three papers. He doesn't even have a PhD, let alone work at a university of note. He published a wacko book in 1991 saying the big bang didn't happen and has probably been grasping at any support since. The physics community doesn't take him seriously, it seems.
 
I too read the article with fascination. Who doesn't want to learn we had everything wrong? :giggle:

When I learned that the article wasn't exactly established science, I wanted to hear from a credible source as to why. So, I listened to about twenty minutes of Dr. Brian Keating's rebuttal (Aug 19) and am certain of one thing at least - I don't understand any of it. And so, I have no idea if the Big Bang really happened or not. I'll sleep well enough with that.
 
Eventually, as a singularity, the Big Bang can't be reconciled with spacetime science, which pinches out at singularity. It's not assumed that the Big Bang was a singular event -- or a bang. That is just popular language, imo

Spacetime didn't just poof into existence -- spacetime is required to be emergent ... but ... from ... ??
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Eventually, as a singularity, the Big Bang can't be reconciled with spacetime science, which pinches out at singularity. It's not assumed that the Big Bang was a singular event -- or a bang. That is just popular language, imo

Spacetime didn't just poof into existence -- spacetime is required to be emergent ... but ... from ... ??
Click to expand...
Here is one hypothesis. The Big Bang: How Could Something Come From Nothing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Matteo JWST info and images (Sky at Night magazine) Science & Nature 0

Similar threads


Back
Top