Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[We Never Know]

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



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.

"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."

I thought the BB model was about how the universe started and began expanding... So the BB model is for only "after" the start?

Sort of like dropping a pebble in water and the ripples expand out in all directions.
We understand ripples but not what started them.

 

[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."

I thought the BB model was about how the universe started and began expanding... So the BB model is for only "after" the start?

Yes, of course. That is what we actually have data to test with. That means that our description is only *after* the start. Of course, we are talking about less than a second after the start and after.

There are *extensions* of the basic BB model that attempt to address whether or not the concept of 'before the BB' even makes sense. The problem is that ALL of these are based on some sort of quantum theory of gravity and we simply don't have any data to distinguish which, if any, are correct. Anything before nucleosynthesis is speculation, although a period of inflation (hyper expansion) is well indicated.

Science is based on data. The core BB model is very good from a fraction of a second into the expansion to now, as long as cold dark matter and dark energy are included. There are still many questions related to galaxy formation and galactic dynamics (which is even true about galaxies at the present time, let alone those in the very early universe).

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, of course. That is what we actually have data to test with. That means that our description is only *after* the start. Of course, we are talking about less than a second after the start and after.

There are *extensions* of the basic BB model that attempt to address whether or not the concept of 'before the BB' even makes sense. The problem is that ALL of these are based on some sort of quantum theory of gravity and we simply don't have any data to distinguish which, if any, are correct. Anything before nucleosynthesis is speculation, although a period of inflation (hyper expansion) is well indicated.

Science is based on data. The core BB model is very good from a fraction of a second into the expansion to now, as long as cold dark matter and dark energy are included. There are still many questions related to galaxy formation and galactic dynamics (which is even true about galaxies at the present time, let alone those in the very early universe).

Sort of like dropping a pebble in water and the ripples expand out in all directions.
We understand the ripples but not what started them

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@ben d

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:

​

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.

I understood that science was a team thing, and that observations and data acquisition must come before analysis and explanation.

So are you certain that Leja spoke unscientifically when he reported on his team's JWST observations of the early universe, because he could not yet explain why large galaxies existed earlier than most of the cosmological models predict.?

Can anyone else verify Gnostic's claim?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sort of like dropping a pebble in water and the ripples expand out in all directions.
We understand the ripples but not what started them

That reminds me of conjugate points wrt waves. For example, given no friction, and a perfect sphere of water, drop a stone at one point and there is a plop as the stone displaces the water vertically, and then falls back to produce waves which radiate spherically away from the point of the plop. and gets to the maximum size at the 'equator' of the sphere and then get smaller until at the conjugate point, the water rises again before plopping back and return again to the starting point. This could go on eternally. (Btw,, conjugate theory is used in detecting where underground nuclear tests, earthquakes, etc., take place. With an appropriate underground phased array of sensors, located any place, the point of origin of the epicenter of any incoming pressure waves can be determined,)

In the case of the universe and the expansion of space in time, is there some conjugate point where space begins to contract again until it returns to the starting point to create the next cycle, an eternal process?

 

[gnostic]

I understood that science was a team thing, and that observations and data acquisition must come before analysis and explanation.

So are you certain that Leja spoke unscientifically when he reported on his team's JWST observations of the early universe, because he could not yet explain why large galaxies existed earlier than most of the cosmological models predict.?

The article only showed that Leja shared JWST findings (observation and data) to the press, but he didn't offer any explanation as to WHAT & HOW the observations of massive galaxies were possible.

The problem is you are conflating what Leja said in his interview, as if they were alternative model (or hypothesis). There were no new model or hypothesis, just that the current models may required revising, but as he stated, they NEEDED MORE observations and data before they can even begin to explain what the JWST have acquired.

From my view of your posts in regarding to what is in the article, you have taken Leja out of context with your claims. You are conjecturing or claiming that Leja have new model, when he did no such thing, because you are confusing observations with explanation. He didn't have ANY NEW EXPLANATION.

I don't see any new model, just Leja sharing JWST observations and data, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because Leja said, the current models may need replacing or updates, it doesn't mean he provided new model.

It is like you seeing anthill and you thinking it is bloody Everest.

Please, re-read WHAT LEJA IS ACTUALLY SAYING, and not colored with your biased views.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The article only showed that Leja shared JWST findings (observation and data) to the press, but he didn't offer any explanation as to WHAT & HOW the observations of massive galaxies were possible.

The problem is you are conflating what Leja said in his interview, as if they were alternative model (or hypothesis). There were no new model or hypothesis, just that the current models may required revising, but as he stated, they NEEDED MORE observations and data before they can even begin to explain what the JWST have acquired.

From my view of your posts in regarding to what is in the article, you have taken Leja out of context with your claims.

I don't see any new model, just Leja sharing JWST observations and data, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because Leja said, the current models may need replacing or updates, it doesn't mean he provided new model.

It is like you seeing anthill and you thinking it is bloody Everest.

Please, re-read WHAT LEJA IS ACTUALLY SAYING, and not colored with your biased views.

You are still making the same claim, but my understanding is that science is a team thing, and that observations and data acquisition must come before analysis and explanation.

So I am not convinced that Leja spoke unscientifically when he reported on his team's JWST observations of the early universe, because he could not yet explain why large galaxies existed earlier than most of the cosmological models predict?

Does anyone else agree with Gnostic's claim that Leja spoke unscientifically?

 

[Polymath257]

Sort of like dropping a pebble in water and the ripples expand out in all directions.
We understand the ripples but not what started them

You are assuming that something started the BB. That is still very much an open question, depending on quantum gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

You are still making the same claim, but my understanding is that science is a team thing, and that observations and data acquisition must come before analysis and explanation.

So I am not convinced that Leja spoke unscientifically when he reported on his team's JWST observations of the early universe, because he could not yet explain why large galaxies existed earlier than most of the cosmological models predict?

Does anyone else agree with Gnostic's claim that Leja spoke unscientifically?

No. From what I can say, he spoke somewhat loosely (cosmological models vs models of galaxy formation), but not unscientifically. he was, after all, speaking in a forum for lay people.

 

[Polymath257]

In the case of the universe and the expansion of space in time, is there some conjugate point where space begins to contract again until it returns to the starting point to create the next cycle, an eternal process?

That has been a point of conjecture for quite some time. The FW models do allow for such behavior.

The problem is that the evidence points the other way: the expansion is accelerating, not slowing (which is required for the contraction).

There are other cyclical models as well. For example, one has the universe expanding to a point where quantum fluctuations dominate with the possibility that one will 'break out' and form a new universe. Again, not a model that is taken very seriously, but it is at least consistent with the evidence so far.

 

[We Never Know]

You are assuming that something started the BB. That is still very much an open question, depending on quantum gravity.

If it didn't always exist, at some point it had a start.

 

[Polymath257]

If it didn't always exist, at some point it had a start.

That depends a bit on what you mean by 'always'. And, for that matter, what you mean by 'start'.

For example, if it exists for all time, is that existing 'always' even if time had a start? Did it 'have a start' if there was no time in which it didn't exist?

And then there is the little detail of a 'point' where it 'starts'. Why a single point? Why not all of space?

It's easy to have a host of hidden assumptions if you aren't careful in this.

 

[We Never Know]

That depends a bit on what you mean by 'always'. And, for that matter, what you mean by 'start'.

For example, if it exists for all time, is that existing 'always' even if time had a start? Did it 'have a start' if there was no time in which it didn't exist?

And then there is the little detail of a 'point' where it 'starts'. Why a single point? Why not all of space?

It's easy to have a host of hidden assumptions if you aren't careful in this.

When I say point, I'm not referring to a "certain point", its a loose figure of speech(there wasn't then there was). I used point instead of place or time since evidently no place or time supposedly existed.

Its the same with time. Either time always existed or at one/a point it started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I say point, I'm not referring to a "certain point", its a loose figure of speech(there wasn't then there was). I used point instead of place or time since evidently no place or time supposedly existed.

Its the same with time. Either time always existed or at one/a point it started.

I think that @Polymath257 is referring to certain models where time started with the Big Bang. If time started with the Big Bang then the matter has always been here if always was only for 13.8 billion years.

 

[We Never Know]

I think that @Polymath257 is referring to certain models where time started with the Big Bang. If time started with the Big Bang then the matter has always been here if always was only for 13.8 billion years.

There wasn't and then there was... is not much of an argument on the origins of the universe or time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There wasn't and then there was... is not much of an argument on the origins of the universe or time.

Of course a strawman is always going to sound silly.

 

[We Never Know]

Of course a strawman is always going to sound silly.

"There wasn't and then there was"

Do tell what the strawman is?

PS: that is a direct question. Don't try to avoid it with your proper question, didnt ask nicely, or other BS.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When I say point, I'm not referring to a "certain point", its a loose figure of speech(there wasn't then there was). I used point instead of place or time since evidently no place or time supposedly existed.

Its the same with time. Either time always existed or at one/a point it started.

How would you define the concept of time, does it exist as some independent cosmic entity, or is it merely a measurement by proxy of some finite period of existence?

 

[We Never Know]

How would you define the concept of time, does it exist as some independent cosmic entity, or is it merely a measurement by proxy of some finite period of existence?

Good question.

If something existed that produced the big bang, wouldn't time have to exist too?

IOW, if time started after the BB, how did the BB even happen without time?

Wouldn't time and space have to exist for a singularity to exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"There wasn't and then there was"

Do tell what the strawman is?

PS: that is a direct question. Don't try to avoid it with your proper question, didnt ask nicely, or other BS.

Oversimplification is always a strawman.