International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Split Thread: It all started with a Big Bang? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=360724)

Mike Helland 22nd July 2022 05:20 PM

It all started with a Big Bang?
 
There were 10 times more galaxies just like our own Milky Way in the early Universe than previously thought.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62259492

Mike Helland 26th July 2022 09:09 AM

First Batch of Candidate Galaxies at Redshifts 11 to 20 Revealed by the James Webb Space Telescope Early Release Observations

https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11558

"Neither the high number of such objects found nor the high redshifts they reside at are expected from the previously favored predictions."

A list of more papers:

https://twitter.com/conselice/status...53909563260928

Puppycow 27th July 2022 09:59 AM

Could the universe be older than they thought?

I'll wait for the scientific community to weigh in on whether there is actually a redshift of 20, and if so, what that would imply about the age of the universe.

acbytesla 27th July 2022 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13864884)
Could the universe be older than they thought?

I'll wait for the scientific community to weigh in on whether there is actually a redshift of 20, and if so, what that would imply about the age of the universe.

Absolutely. The reality is we don't know how old the universe is. We just know there was a point when we can't see farther back and that the universe has been expanding.

theprestige 27th July 2022 12:06 PM

We also suspect that prior to a certain point in the history of the universe, concepts of time like "age" and "history" and "prior to" aren't meaningful.

jonesdave116 27th July 2022 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13864908)
Absolutely. The reality is we don't know how old the universe is. We just know there was a point when we can't see farther back and that the universe has been expanding.

Sorry, that is not correct. We can determine the age of the universe from the CMB. And that tells us that it is ~ 13.8 billion years old. Given that the CMB is from very soon after the big bang, which is when the universe came into being, that gives us a decent estimate for the age of the universe.

acbytesla 27th July 2022 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13865020)
Sorry, that is not correct. We can determine the age of the universe from the CMB. And that tells us that it is ~ 13.8 billion years old. Given that the CMB is from very soon after the big bang, which is when the universe came into being, that gives us a decent estimate for the age of the universe.

No, we can only see back 13.8 billion years because the CMB obscures seeing anything beyond that. The Big Bang is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the expansion.

Mike Helland 27th July 2022 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13864884)
Could the universe be older than they thought?

I'll wait for the scientific community to weigh in on whether there is actually a redshift of 20, and if so, what that would imply about the age of the universe.

The empirical evidence that LCDM is wrong was pretty good before JWST.

Now it's a matter of when cosmology realizes it's in a river in Egypt.

Mike Helland 28th July 2022 03:27 PM

"Wow, James Webb Found Galaxies That Sort of Break Modern Theories"

New video by Anton Petrov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_KMiYu3BM

jonesdave116 1st August 2022 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13865046)
No, we can only see back 13.8 billion years because the CMB obscures seeing anything beyond that. The Big Bang is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the expansion.

There is nothing to see. The CMB is from only ~ 400 000 years after the big bang. It is from the epoch of recombination. Prior to that you just had a hot plasma. And the big bang is not an hypothesis. It is a theory. That is, all the evidence strongly favours it, and disfavours alternate models. Which is why pretty much nobody bothers with the long dead alternative models anymore.

acbytesla 1st August 2022 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868516)
There is nothing to see. The CMB is from only ~ 400 000 years after the big bang. It is from the era of recombination. Prior to that you just had a hot plasma. And the big bang is not an hypothesis. It is a theory. That is, all the evidence strongly favours it, and disfavours alternate models. Which is why pretty much nobody bothers with the long dead alternative models anymore.

There's a huge problem with The Big Bang model. It depends on the existence of Dark Matter and we have zero evidence of dark matter. I'm not a scientist but it seems to me there are too many holes in this theory of cosmology. I'm not saying it is false. Just that this model doesn’t have enough evidence to compare it to other theories.

jonesdave116 1st August 2022 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13865195)
The empirical evidence that LCDM is wrong was pretty good before JWST.

Now it's a matter of when cosmology realizes it's in a river in Egypt.

What 'empirical' evidence?

arthwollipot 1st August 2022 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13868522)
There's a huge problem with The Big Bang model. It depends on the existence of Dark Matter and we have zero evidence of dark matter. I'm not a scientist but it seems to me there are too many holes in this theory of cosmology. I'm not saying it is false. Just that this model doesn’t have enough evidence to compare it to other theories.

We have lots of evidence for dark matter. We know it's there. We just don't know what it is yet.

jonesdave116 1st August 2022 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13868522)
There's a huge problem with The Big Bang model. It depends on the existence of Dark Matter and we have zero evidence of dark matter. I'm not a scientist but it seems to me there are too many holes in this theory of cosmology. I'm not saying it is false. Just that this model doesn’t have enough evidence to compare it to other theories.

No, it doesn't depend on dark matter. And there is plenty of evidence for its existence, as arthwollipot said. The most convincing being the lensing observations of colliding clusters.
And the big bang is as proven as a scientific theory ever gets. It predicted the CMB, we detect the CMB. There is no other explanation for the CMB.

And what 'other theories'? MOND? Fails at large scales. Any others?

macdoc 1st August 2022 09:33 PM

Perhaps have a listen.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJmFnMea1Q

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868525)
What 'empirical' evidence?

Direct measurements of the expansion of space do not match predictions from the LCDM.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ering-mystery/

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868537)
No, it doesn't depend on dark matter.

The standard model of cosmology does.

LCDM.

CDM stands for cold dark matter. L is lambda, or dark energy.

jonesdave116 2nd August 2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13868868)
The standard model of cosmology does.

LCDM.

CDM stands for cold dark matter. L is lambda, or dark energy.

He didn't say LCDM. He said the big bang relied upon it. It doesn't.

jonesdave116 2nd August 2022 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13868864)
Direct measurements of the expansion of space do not match predictions from the LCDM.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ering-mystery/

And how does that invalidate LCDM? All it does is say that there is currently a mismatch between measured values of the Hubble constant, depending on the distance at which they are measured. It sure as hell does not invalidate the model. There is far too much evidence in favour of it for that to be a problem. It says the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. And that is what is measured. The fact that current measurements disagree about the rate of accelerated expansion, does not mean that it is not expanding at an accelerated rate!
Sure, there may turn out to be some new physics involved, but the basis of the model is not going to change appreciably. There is no way we will ever revert to steady-state models, and MOND is seen to fail at large scales. We are still going to need L and we are still going to need DM.

Ziggurat 2nd August 2022 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13868522)
There's a huge problem with The Big Bang model. It depends on the existence of Dark Matter and we have zero evidence of dark matter.

This is... odd. Because it's completely wrong.

We have lots of evidence of dark matter. Hell, we've even detected dark matter. Neutrinos are dark matter (did you not know this?).

Now, people don't usually talk about the fact that neutrinos are dark matter, because they're only a tiny portion of the dark matter that's out there. There's a lot of dark matter out there which we still don't know what it's made of.

But again, we have lots of evidence that it's there, because although we cannot see it directly (hence the name), we can observe its gravitational effects.

Quote:

I'm not a scientist
Then your first instinct shouldn't be that the actual scientists are wrong, your first instinct should be that you don't understand what they're actually saying.

And that's not your fault, for two reasons. First, you're not a scientist, you haven't devoted your life to this stuff, so why SHOULD you know much about it? Second, once you're out of school, most of the information most people pick up about science comes from journalists, and they SUCK at accurately conveying science.

Quote:

but it seems to me there are too many holes in this theory of cosmology. I'm not saying it is false. Just that this model doesn’t have enough evidence to compare it to other theories.
What other theories? There are no competing theories. All the alternatives have already failed, spectacularly. Our understanding of the Big Bang is likely incomplete, but there's no reason to suspect it's fundamentally wrong.

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868953)
He didn't say LCDM. He said the big bang relied upon it. It doesn't.

If you're referring to some older version of the big bang prior to LCDM, they don't work. Which is why LCDM came to be.

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868960)
And how does that invalidate LCDM?

The model predicts 68 km/s/Mpc.

And we measure 74 km/s/Mpc.

The model is wrong.

jonesdave116 2nd August 2022 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13868990)
The model predicts 68 km/s/Mpc.

And we measure 74 km/s/Mpc.

The model is wrong.

No, the model is not wrong. There is a discrepancy among the measured values versus prediction. However, we see L and we see CDM. No other model even gets close. So, we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, are we? Particularly when there are no other models that can explain the acceleration speed, and also explain all the other things that LCDM does.
Perhaps, when the neutrino deficit came to light, we should have just thrown away the standard model of the Sun, as it didn't match predictions?

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868998)
No other model even gets close.

But none get it right.

People act like I'm attacking their religion. I don't get that. I'm just stating facts.


Quote:

So, we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, are we?
That sounds like an over reaction.

And pretending there is nothing wrong would be an under reaction.

Ziggurat 2nd August 2022 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13868998)
No, the model is not wrong. There is a discrepancy among the measured values versus prediction.

This deserves more emphasis. 68 km/s/Mpc is NOT a prediction of the model. It comes from measurements. So does 74 km/s/Mpc. These are BOTH measurement-dependent numbers, not predictions of the model. The model cannot make predictions of the expansion rate independent of observations.

Ziggurat 2nd August 2022 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869007)
But none get it right.

What does "right" mean, anyways? Newtonian mechanics gets some stuff right, but not everything.

What we want is a theory which is accurate. That's the best we can ever hope for. And there are currently some inaccuracies. But (and this is really important) we don't yet know if those inaccuracies are intrinsic to the model, a result of errors in our measurements, or some combination. But the inaccuracies aren't that big, which suggests that, like Newtonian mechanics, even if it's wrong it's still getting close. Because there's still a lot of validity to Newtonian mechanics, even with the introduction of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Quote:

People act like I'm attacking their religion. I don't get that. I'm just stating facts.
The problem is that you're also making implications about those facts which are wrong.

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13869011)
This deserves more emphasis. 68 km/s/Mpc is NOT a prediction of the model. It comes from measurements. So does 74 km/s/Mpc. These are BOTH measurement-dependent numbers, not predictions of the model.

68 km/s/Mpc is not a direct measurement.

Measurements of the CMB constrain parameters of the LCDM, from which it predicts 68 km/s/Mpc.

Mike Helland 2nd August 2022 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13869013)
But the inaccuracies aren't that big

Riiiiight.

Gravitational-lensing measurements push Hubble-constant discrepancy past 5σ

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...0200210a/full/

Ziggurat 2nd August 2022 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869016)
68 km/s/Mpc is not a direct measurement.

I didn't say it was. But it's still completely measurement-dependent. Which means it's subject to measurement error. It is not a direct output of the model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869021)
Riiiiight.

Gravitational-lensing measurements push Hubble-constant discrepancy past 5σ

Comparing the error to your sigma tells you about your confidence in the error. It says nothing about the size of the error.

Like I said, it's very possible LCDM is incomplete. And astronomers and cosmologists aren't ignoring these things, they're paying very close attention. But the errors don't mean what you seem to think they mean. You seem to think this means the whole thing needs to be scrapped. But that really isn't the case at all.

acbytesla 2nd August 2022 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13868979)
This is... odd. Because it's completely wrong.

We have lots of evidence of dark matter. Hell, we've even detected dark matter. Neutrinos are dark matter (did you not know this?).

That is a recent argument. But Dark Matter is hardly proven.
This is what Wikipedia says about Dark Matter.

Quote:

Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe.[1] Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation (like light) and is, therefore, difficult to detect. Various astrophysical observations – including gravitational effects which cannot be explained by currently accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen – imply dark matter's presence. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution.[2]

The primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would behave quite differently if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter. Some galaxies would not have formed at all and others would not move as they currently do.[3] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing[4] and the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions,[5] and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass-energy content of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter, and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy.[6][7][8][9] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass-energy content.[10][11][12][13]

Because no one has directly observed dark matter yet – assuming it exists – it must barely interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation except through gravity. Most dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic; it may be composed of some as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particles.[b] The primary candidate for dark matter is some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered, particularly weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs),[14] though axions have drawn renewed attention due to the non-detection of WIMPs in experiments.[15] Many experiments to directly detect and study dark matter particles are being actively undertaken, but none have yet succeeded.[16] Dark matter is classified as "cold," "warm," or "hot" according to its velocity (more precisely, its free streaming length). Current models favor a cold dark matter scenario, in which structures emerge by the gradual accumulation of particles.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13868979)
Now, people don't usually talk about the fact that neutrinos are dark matter, because they're only a tiny portion of the dark matter that's out there. There's a lot of dark matter out there which we still don't know what it's made of.

But again, we have lots of evidence that it's there, because although we cannot see it directly (hence the name), we can observe its gravitational effects.

Dark Matter is hypothesized to make the calculations work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13868979)
Then your first instinct shouldn't be that the actual scientists are wrong, your first instinct should be that you don't understand what they're actually saying.

And that's not your fault, for two reasons. First, you're not a scientist, you haven't devoted your life to this stuff, so why SHOULD you know much about it? Second, once you're out of school, most of the information most people pick up about science comes from journalists, and they SUCK at accurately conveying science.

I fully embrace that I have only a fraction of the knowledge of those fine ladies and gentlemen that have made this study their life's work. I wouldn't presume for a second to say the scientists are wrong. I am just repeating what some of them have said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13868979)
What other theories? There are no competing theories. All the alternatives have already failed, spectacularly. Our understanding of the Big Bang is likely incomplete, but there's no reason to suspect it's fundamentally wrong.

The steady-state model. ...
The bouncing cosmological model. ...
Plasma, or electric universe theory. ...
The black hole origin theory. ...
Simulation theory.

There is the MOND theory that argues against Dark Matter.

As i have said, I have neither the scientific or mathematical background to dispute any of these theories/ hypotheses. It just seems to me, that it is a form of hubris to suggest one knows what happened before the CMB since that is our limit to what can be seen.

Ziggurat 3rd August 2022 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13869257)
That is a recent argument. But Dark Matter is hardly proven.

We weren't talking about proof, we were talking about evidence. And there is lots.

Quote:

The steady-state model. ...
... is a joke that fails on so many levels that even a child should understand why it's wrong. It violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and that's just the start.

Quote:

The bouncing cosmological model. ...
That's really just a variation of the big bang model, not a fundamentally different thing.

Quote:

Plasma, or electric universe theory. ...
Hahahahahaha!
That is EXACTLY what I meant when I said alternatives failed hard. There are multiple threads about these ideas already, these theories are complete jokes.

Quote:

The black hole origin theory. ...
Another variant of the big bang.

Quote:

Simulation theory.
Not even a scientific theory, since it's not falsifiable.

Quote:

There is the MOND theory that argues against Dark Matter.
MOND is wrong. It was an interesting effort, but it failed.

Quote:

As i have said, I have neither the scientific or mathematical background to dispute any of these theories/ hypotheses. It just seems to me, that it is a form of hubris to suggest one knows what happened before the CMB since that is our limit to what can be seen.
We don't need to know what happened before the CMB to conclude the big bang happened. The CMB basically is the big bang. We already know that our theories aren't reliable if you go back far enough, that isn't news to anyone in the field. And much of what you listed as alternatives cannot even handle the CMB.

jonesdave116 3rd August 2022 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13869257)
That is a recent argument. But Dark Matter is hardly proven.

As Ziggurat said, the evidence strongly favours it. The best test of dark matter versus MOND is at the largest scales. And that is where MOND fails. In particular, in the gravitational lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters. DM would predict that when clusters collide the DM should just carry on through to the periphery, as it does not interact with baryonic matter, nor with itself. The baryonic matter, however, will interact with the baryonic matter in the cluster it is colliding with, and get hung up in the middle.
Therefore that predicts that if we look at those colliding cluster aftermaths, using both EM and lensing observations, we should see the bulk of the mass displaced from the baryonic (i.e. visible) matter. And that is what we see.
MOND has to invoke some DM in a desperate attempt to stay alive. Which essentially renders it an irrelevance, as it was initially invented to do away with DM and relativity. Now, the only surviving variants require relativity and DM!


Quote:

Dark Matter is hypothesized to make the calculations work.
Was, is the word you are looking for. As mentioned, various evidence now favours it. Bethe hypothesised that fusion powers the Sun. Then the evidence supported it. That is what science does. Make an hypothesis, publish it, and then see if the evidence supports or rejects it.


Quote:

The steady-state model. ...

Long since been shown to be wrong. Probably nobody left alive still publishing in support of it. The last hangers-on were the likes of Fred Hoyle, the Burbidges, and Jayint Narlikar. The latter is the only one left alive.

Quote:

Plasma, or electric universe theory. ...
The latter is not even science. The former is long dead, and has no explanation for the CMB and other evidence for the big bang. Eric Lerner tried in a non-peer-reviewed book, but it was laughable stuff.

Quote:

There is the MOND theory that argues against Dark Matter.
As mentioned, it was invented to do away with DM and relativity. It now requires both to pretend that it is still relevant. It isn't.

Quote:

As i have said, I have neither the scientific or mathematical background to dispute any of these theories/ hypotheses. It just seems to me, that it is a form of hubris to suggest one knows what happened before the CMB since that is our limit to what can be seen.
As mentioned, the CMB basically is the big bang. It was a prediction of the big bang model. Basically, after the bang you have a super hot plasma of quarks and gluons and stuff. As things cool down, you start to get ions and electrons. It is still too hot for them to combine. Eventually, things do become cool enough for ions and electrons to combine to form mostly neutral H. In doing so, a photon is emitted in what is called Lyman-alpha emission. Given the time and distance involved since this happened, the emission should be redshifted into the microwave range. And that is the CMB.

Mike Helland 3rd August 2022 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13869084)
You seem to think this means the whole thing needs to be scrapped.

Not necessarily. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it did.

jonesdave116 3rd August 2022 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869658)
Not necessarily. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it did.

Then you'll need another model that not only explains the Hubble tension, but also explains the observations that support LCDM. You haven't got one. Every other model fails spectacularly.

sphenisc 3rd August 2022 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13869777)
Then you'll need another model that not only explains the Hubble tension, but also explains the observations that support LCDM. You haven't got one. Every other model fails spectacularly.

No, he doesn't.

Mike Helland 3rd August 2022 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13869777)
Then you'll need another model that not only explains the Hubble tension, but also explains the observations that support LCDM. You haven't got one. Every other model fails spectacularly.

Why do I need anything?

I'm not allowed to agree with scientists that LCDM is inaccurate?

jonesdave116 3rd August 2022 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869785)
Why do I need anything?

I'm not allowed to agree with scientists that LCDM is inaccurate?

Nowhere near as inaccurate as the few other models that seek/ sought to replace it. So, why don't you have a bit of patience, and wait until we either have more accurate measurements that may agree with LCDM, or we discover new physics that can be added to the existing model, that alleviates that tension? The way you talk is the same way I see anti-science cults talk about real science. 'Oh, it can't explain this 100% accurately, therefore it should be scrapped, and you should adopt (insert impossible pseudoscience model here)'. Why don't you talk about the successes of LCDM, and how other models totally fail? Because you are only interested in attacking the standard model. For whatever reasons.

jonesdave116 3rd August 2022 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphenisc (Post 13869784)
No, he doesn't.

If he wants LCDM to be scrapped, he does. It is a very successful model. You need something even more successful to replace it. To hear him talk, it has been a complete failure. Which is as far from the truth as you can get.

Mike Helland 3rd August 2022 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 13869789)
The way you talk is the same way I see anti-science cults talk about real science. 'Oh, it can't explain this 100% accurately, therefore it should be scrapped, and you should adopt (insert impossible pseudoscience model here)'. Why don't you talk about the successes of LCDM, and how other models totally fail? Because you are only interested in attacking the standard model. For whatever reasons.

I think you're projecting.

I totally understand your position. Science is good. Science is truth.

If we question the big bang, why not question everything?

You're fighting the good fight.

Ziggurat 3rd August 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland (Post 13869805)
I think you're projecting.

I totally understand your position. Science is good. Science is truth.

If we question the big bang, why not question everything?

You're fighting the good fight.

The problem isn't that you're questioning the big bang. It's that you don't actually understand what it is you're questioning. You don't know enough to even understand the answers you're being given either.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.