Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

From my examination of the theories, nobody can really 'scientifically' say what's alive and what's not alive. "Defining life has proven to be a difficult task, even though many of us can look at most things and tell if they’re alive or not. The most widely accepted scientific definition for life right now is this: “life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”. However, there are still problems with this definition." 3.5. How can we tell if something is alive or not? | Astrobiology Learning Progressions | Education | Astrobiology (nasa.gov)
Jesus said if his disciples didn't proclaim the truth about him, the rocks would. And he used rocks as living illustrations.

How ironic. The rocks tell us the he had a common ancestor with other apes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you were corrected by @Polymath257 who understands far more of this than either of us do and you rejected those corrections. At that point you could no longer blame Leja for your error. You adopted that baby.

Polymath was wrong! Despite his impressive understanding of science generally, I suspect his belief is a little too involved in the BB theory as it is presently understood, and not open to the fact that it is early days for human understanding of cosmic existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not just the same facts. The very same words. They all pulled it from a common source.

Precisely, obviously Leja spoke to the press about his finding, and by facts, I mean the truth concerning what he actually explained.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I am explaining to you that when he mentions cosmological models, he means models *of galaxy formation*, not models of the Big Bang.

Sorry. but I was not saying Leja mentioned BB models, that is just SZ and you implying it. And your reading comprehension needs a touch up, what is about this statement do you not understand?

""Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology. Accounting for such a high amount of mass would require either altering the models for cosmology or revising the scientific understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe."

Cosmological models or Galaxy formation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Anyway, I am curious what you think would happen even *if* the standard model of cosmology, the LCDM model was found to have issues because of this observation.

Do you think that the BB model would be entirely dropped? That suddenly, cosmologists would conclude the universe is only 10,000 years old? That it isn't expanding?

NONE of those will be the result. At most, it will be an adjustment to some aspect of the dynamics of dark matter and a rethink about primordial fluctuations and, perhaps, baryon content.

And yes, that would be *incredibly exciting*. It is always exciting to learn how we are wrong with good data and then try to figure out what the correct answer is.

But, any new explanation has to match up with *all* of the data that was previously found. That doesn't just get thrown away. We need to figure out not only what is right, but precisely where we went wrong in our previous analysis. Those red shifts don't go away. The element abundances don't disappear. The changes in galaxies we push red shifts higher don't vanish. ALL of those need to be explained by any new theory.

I'd point out that there have been challenges before to the BB model. At one stage, the estimates for the ages of the oldest stars were calculated to be more than the age of the universe. That caused all of the religious pundits to jump up and down claiming the Big Bang is wrong (which obviously means they are right, right?). Instead it was found that our methods of determining the ages of those stars was wrong. When the right method was found and verified, the ages dropped and all was good again.

So, anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that any new description that comes out of these measurements will still have a universe that is expanding from a much hotter state where nuclear reactions gave rise to the lighter elements and where, later, it became transparent giving rise to the CMBR. So the basic BB model is secure. How it will be tweaked, if at all, is to be determined.

I have no problem with what you say, except to say that I don't see that Leja is challenging the BB model, just that as it stands, if his data holds up, the BB model may need to be revised. Nor am I as confident as you are that the BB model will stand the test of time. Not a problem, that is how science is meant to work imho.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, yes, there will *always* be questions concerning those measurements we can't make because our technology doesn't allow.

Nobody claims that science has found the full 'truth of existence'. Even what that means is a philosophical question that science simply doesn't address.

And yes, it is pretty certain that ALL of our current ideas will be wrong in detail. But exactly what that means isn't what you seem to think.

For example, Newton's description of gravity is *wrong*. We know that it is wrong and have measured exactly how it goes wrong. We even have a better explanation in general relativity.

But Newton's description is still good enough to send probes to other planets, to describe all but the most extreme situations for gravity, and to give the basic facts about even things like binary stars. Even those it is *wrong*, it is accurate enough in most situations to be 'good enough'.

Even if the Big Bang model is found to be *wrong*, it will continue to be used for the vast majority of cosmology simply because it is accurate enough for most situations. Finding out when and how it goes wrong is what will lead to any replacement theory. But in the cases where it get it 'right', that new theory will *have* to agree, at least in the end predictions.

Good, we are in agreement in the context of evolving science. But fwiw, imho the spiritual path will provide answers to what existence really is, whereas the scientific path has limits to the understanding of the underlying unity of it All.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Polymath was wrong! Despite his impressive understanding of science generally, I suspect his belief is a little too involved in the BB theory as it is presently understood, and not open to the fact that it is early days for human understanding of cosmic existence.

Really! How are you going to prove that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really! How are you going to prove that?

Here is Polymath's response in post #439 to my post where I spoke about the 99% of cosmological models being wrong.

Polymath said... "No, 99% of the models of galaxy formation are wrong. That is a different matter than cosmological models."

Leja was clear when he said that either the cosmological models or galaxy formation models are wrong, that there is a distinction between cosmological models and galaxy formation models, but both are candidates for being wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do so when needed. Meanwhile you are merely angry because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence means that you have lost the right to demand any evidence.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

You're funny. In a sad way, sorry about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're funny. In a sad way, sorry about that.

Why do you say that? It is because I try to help those who are totally ignorant to learn?

I guess if you want to keep yourself ignorant of reality there is no way to help you. But I can definitely point out that you do keep calling God a liar. But if you do not understand that one short sentence you can never see that.

Tell me, why does one short sentence scare you so much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is Polymath's response in post #439 to my post where I spoke about the 99% of cosmological models being wrong.

Polymath said... "No, 99% of the models of galaxy formation are wrong. That is a different matter than cosmological models."

Leja was clear when he said that either the cosmological models or galaxy formation models are wrong, that there is a distinction between cosmological models and galaxy formation models, but both are candidates for being wrong.

"Cosmological models" are models of the Big Bang. And other models, but frankly I do not know if there are any other models undergoing active research:

Physical cosmology - Wikipedia.

A cosmological model, or simply cosmology, provides a description of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the universe and allows study of fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1]

Stars are not the "largest structures' Even galaxies are not the "largest structures". The scientist may have misspoke or if just one person took the first notes he may have made an error. It looks as if all of those articles are copying one specific article. When the same quotes are repeated ad in all of them that tends to tell us that there was one original article.

You denied brining up the Big Bang, but you did without realizing it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Cosmological models" are models of the Big Bang. And other models, but frankly I do not know if there are any other models undergoing active research:

Physical cosmology - Wikipedia.

A cosmological model, or simply cosmology, provides a description of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the universe and allows study of fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1]

Stars are not the "largest structures' Even galaxies are not the "largest structures". The scientist may have misspoke or if just one person took the first notes he may have made an error. It looks as if all of those articles are copying one specific article. When the same quotes are repeated ad in all of them that tends to tell us that there was one original article.

You denied brining up the Big Bang, but you did without realizing it.

No one misspoke. Polymath understands.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Cosmological models" are models of the Big Bang. And other models, but frankly I do not know if there are any other models undergoing active research:

Physical cosmology - Wikipedia.

A cosmological model, or simply cosmology, provides a description of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the universe and allows study of fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1]

Stars are not the "largest structures' Even galaxies are not the "largest structures". The scientist may have misspoke or if just one person took the first notes he may have made an error. It looks as if all of those articles are copying one specific article. When the same quotes are repeated ad in all of them that tends to tell us that there was one original article.

You denied brining up the Big Bang, but you did without realizing it.

No one misspoke. Polymath understands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one misspoke. Polymath understands.

I don't think that you understood @Polymath257 either.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no problem with what you say, except to say that I don't see that Leja is challenging the BB model, just that as it stands, if his data holds up, the BB model may need to be revised. Nor am I as confident as you are that the BB model will stand the test of time. Not a problem, that is how science is meant to work imho.

Part of it depends on exactly what you mean by the 'Big Bang model'. The model we use today is very different than what was used 50 years ago. The core (expanding universe from a hot, dense state) is there, but the details have been filled in.

Is the core model in trouble? No. Are the details possibly going to be revised? Sure.

 

[gnostic]

@ben d

Precisely, obviously Leja spoke to the press about his finding, and by facts, I mean the truth concerning what he actually explained.

You need to re-read your article again.

Yes, Joel Leja did speak of his observations of these galaxies, but if you actually read what was is saying, he has offered no explanations to WHAT have been observed.

Science required not only observations, but been able to explain WHAT he is observing, and to explain the process of HOW it came to be or HOW it all work.

All I see is a person who cannot explain anything that he has seen so far. What he did say, he is puzzled of these early massive galaxies.

He even stated that they need more time, more observations and more data, before he can even begin to explain HOW that is possible so early.

As the article indicated, Joel Leja recommended:

However, the team needs more observations and data to confirm their findings, and admitted more data might reveal other explanations for what they found.

Does that look like he has “explanations”, Ben?

They are still required to investigate and analyze all the observations & data, and needs to acquire lot more, and it cannot be rushed if they were to learn and verify their original observations.

You are jumping the gun, so to speak, when you wrote this:

“...and by facts, I mean the truth concerning what he actually explained.“​

Leja offered and shared ONLY his observations; he has yet to offer some explanations, which he currently doesn’t have.

You are only seeing what you wants to see, and reading what you want to read, but clearly to me you didn’t understand the bottom line of what Leja was actually saying in this article you had cited.

 

[We Never Know]

Part of it depends on exactly what you mean by the 'Big Bang model'. The model we use today is very different than what was used 50 years ago. The core (expanding universe from a hot, dense state) is there, but the details have been filled in.

Is the core model in trouble? No. Are the details possibly going to be revised? Sure.

What exactly is the big bang model today?

 

[Polymath257]

What exactly is the big bang model today?

It's known as the LCDM. L=Lambda=cosmological constant, CDM= Cold Dark Matter.

The core Big Bang model is based on general relativity and is known as the Friedman-Walker (or, more inclusively, the Friedman-LeMaitre-Robertson-Walker) model. It is a collection of solutions to the equations for general relativity that describe an expanding (or contracting) universe and how the rate of expansion correlates to the energy density.

The next level up, which is also considered core these days, adds in thermodynamics, so describes the way temeprature changes with the expansion. This also is connected to nucleosynthesis and thereby the abundances of light elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium) and their isotopes. It also includes the formation of the Cosmic Microwave background Radiation (CMBR).

This much is not going to change when the details change. It is similar to saying that the planets orbit the sun--the previous description didn't have that, but it was simply wrong. Any new theory will certainly include that basic fact. In the same way, any new desription of cosmology will certainly include an expanding universe, the period of nucleosynthesis, and the formation of the CMBR.

The next level includes dark matter. This is more uncertain (given that we don't know what dark matter is composed of) and may be overturned if our description of gravity changes (so, general relativity is replaced by something else...like MOND). At present, we don't have any descriptions that do not include dark matter, but until we get actual detection in our particle accelerators, it is *possible* we may need to modify our theory of gravity.

The next level is dark energy (cosmological constant) and its properties. This is MUCH more subject to change as we generally don't have many of the details concerning dark energy, including precisely what happens to its density upon expansion (is it actually constant, or does it change in some way?).

Both dark matter and dark energy affect the size and distribution of density fluctuations in the early universe. And it is these fluctuations that determine the size and distribution of early galaxies and stars. At present, there are some significant constraints baed on what we know of the CMBR: any fluctuations in the very early universe should show up as fluctuations in temperature of the CMBR and those are now known pretty well.

So, the core BB model: FW model plus thermo, is very secure. It isn't going to go away unless there is a HUGE revolution (tantamount to saying that planets don't actually orbit the sun). The detials of dark matter and dark energy, and thereby the distribution of energy in the early universe and the size of the fuctuations is very much subject to change at this point.

I should also point out that the sizes and masses of these galaxies are based on computational models that may or may not be accurate in the very early universe. They are calibrated by data from later time periods, but we know that early stars were much hotter and larger because they didn't have the heavier elements in them (those elements were formed when the early stars exploded). This relates to the IMF (a mass function) that determines the size and nature of early stars and galaxies. Leja notes that the models may need to be modified to account for exactly this effect.

 

[We Never Know]

It's known as the LCDM. L=Lambda=cosmological constant, CDM= Cold Dark Matter.

The core Big Bang model is based on general relativity and is known as the Friedman-Walker (or, more inclusively, the Friedman-LeMaitre-Robertson-Walker) model. It is a collection of solutions to the equations for general relativity that describe an expanding (or contracting) universe and how the rate of expansion correlates to the energy density.

The next level up, which is also considered core these days, adds in thermodynamics, so describes the way temeprature changes with the expansion. This also is connected to nucleosynthesis and thereby the abundances of light elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium) and their isotopes. It also includes the formation of the Cosmic Microwave background Radiation (CMBR).

This much is not going to change when the details change. It is similar to saying that the planets orbit the sun--the previous description didn't have that, but it was simply wrong. Any new theory will certainly include that basic fact. In the same way, any new desription of cosmology will certainly include an expanding universe, the period of nucleosynthesis, and the formation of the CMBR.

The next level includes dark matter. This is more uncertain (given that we don't know what dark matter is composed of) and may be overturned if our description of gravity changes (so, general relativity is replaced by something else...like MOND). At present, we don't have any descriptions that do not include dark matter, but until we get actual detection in our particle accelerators, it is *possible* we may need to modify our theory of gravity.

The next level is dark energy (cosmological constant) and its properties. This is MUCH more subject to change as we generally don't have many of the details concerning dark energy, including precisely what happens to its density upon expansion (is it actually constant, or does it change in some way?).

Both dark matter and dark energy affect the size and distribution of density fluctuations in the early universe. And it is these fluctuations that determine the size and distribution of early galaxies and stars. At present, there are some significant constraints baed on what we know of the CMBR: any fluctuations in the very early universe should show up as fluctuations in temperature of the CMBR and those are now known pretty well.

So, the core BB model: FW model plus thermo, is very secure. It isn't going to go away unless there is a HUGE revolution (tantamount to saying that planets don't actually orbit the sun). The detials of dark matter and dark energy, and thereby the distribution of energy in the early universe and the size of the fuctuations is very much subject to change at this point.

I should also point out that the sizes and masses of these galaxies are based on computational models that may or may not be accurate in the very early universe. They are calibrated by data from later time periods, but we know that early stars were much hotter and larger because they didn't have the heavier elements in them (those elements were formed when the early stars exploded). This relates to the IMF (a mass function) that determines the size and nature of early stars and galaxies. Leja notes that the models may need to be modified to account for exactly this effect.

It had to start from something or did the universe spontaneously generate?

And for galaxy sizes, age, etc...

Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

 

[Polymath257]

It had to start from something or did the universe spontaneously generate?

Not a question the core BB model addresses. The BB model describes how the universe expands and links that to energy density and temperatures.

And for galaxy sizes, age, etc...

Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist

Yes, this is what we have been discussing. As I said, the sizes and masses are based on computational models that may or may not be correct for the early universe. In other words, these galaxies may not be as large as initially claimed or they may not be as far away (although that is less likely given the way they were selected). And, as we have been discussing, they do not affect the core BB model. At most, they affect the early size and distribution of density fluctuations, but even that is not at all clear.