The very existence of such early red and dead mas-
sive galaxies is a challenge to our present understanding of
the cosmos. The formation of the structures in the concor-
dance Λ-CDM cosmological scenario is inherently hierarchi-
cal (Press & Schechter 1974; Lacey & Cole 1993), with large
structures assembling at later times with ongoing bursts of
star formation (e.g. White & Rees 1978; De Lucia & Blaizot
2007)
The galaxy formation model/s. Perhaps, although they don't really specify, the behavior of DM at early times, and its contribution to galaxy formation. Either way, nobody is saying we need to chuck out the CMB, DM, DE, etc, and start all over again. There is too much evidence in favour of those things, and no valid alternatives.
It should hardly be surprising that Webb is showing things that may need to alter what we think about galaxy formation. All we had to go on previously were fuzzy images from Hubble. And the models necessarily had to deal with that. Now they have better data. That's science, folks.
And these are early days. Many of the claims need to await spectroscopic validation. Which I believe the JWST paper says. They may hold up, they may not;
The very existence of such early red and dead mas-
sive galaxies is a challenge to our present understanding of
the cosmos. The formation of the structures in the concor-
dance Λ-CDM cosmological scenario is inherently hierarchi-
cal
You don't actually understand what you're reading.
Yes, LCDM is heirarchical. But nobody is claiming that observations contradict that. And that statement alone doesn't really tell you all that much. Figuring out the details of galaxy formation takes a lot more than just that statement, and there are MASSIVE uncertainties involved. We have so little data to work with at this point that we don't even know how to estimate error bars on a lot of this stuff. If you actually read and understand what that paper is saying, none of it challenges LCDM. In fact, how could it? We don't know what quenches galaxies, so there's no basis for claiming that the presence of quenched galaxies contradicts anything.
This implies that disk galaxies have existed in large
numbers for quite a significant amount of time. This
may mean that the morphologies of some disk galaxies,
such as the Milky Way, have remained in their current
form for over 10 billion years. This would challenge our
ideas about mergers being a very common process, and
it might be the case that mergers are only a dominant
process for forming the stellar masses of certain types
of galaxies, namely spheroids, which have a relatively
constant merger fraction at z > 2.5 at around 10%. Al-
though on average galaxies should go through multiple
mergers over cosmic time (Duncan et al. 2019), it is
not clear how these mergers would affect disk morpholo-
gies or if there are only certain galaxies that go through
mergers multiple times while others, such as the disks
we find here, do not undergo these mergers very often
or at all at z < 6.
Word salad. Show me where the CMB has an alternative explanation.
Show me where the ISW effect on those CMB photons has an alternative explanation.
Or the tSZ effect. on the same.
Or the predictions, simulations and observations of the cosmic web.
Or the lensing observations of colliding clusters.
Or the BAO observations.
Et cetera. Where is the alternative model that even comes close to explaining that and more? Hint: there isn't one. Not. Even. Close.
Word salad. Show me where the CMB has an alternative explanation. Show me where the ISW effect on those CMB photons has an alternative explanation.
Or the tSZ effect. on the same.
Or the predictions, simulations and observations of the cosmic web.
Or the lensing observations of colliding clusters.
Or the BAO observations/ Et cetera. Where is the alternative model that even comes close to explaining ll that and more? Hint: there isn't one. Not. Even. Close.
There is no alternative explanation for the CMB. And if you think the CMB is the only evidence in favour of LCDM, then you don't know what LCDM is. It is the favoured model for a reason.
There is no alternative explanation for the CMB. And if you think the CMB is the only evidence in favour of LCDM, then you don't know what LCDM is. It is the favoured model for a reason.
The is zero explanation for why the CMB is correlated with the solar system.
The choice is between no theory, and a broken theory.
Say your car is out of gas and has a flat tire.
Someone offers to fill your gas tank. Do you refuse because the tire is still flat?
Or someone offers to change your tire. Do you refuse because the gas tank is still empty?
This thread is about examining what JWST tells us about the universe.
"Buuut buut the CMB", yeah, I get that. You've said it like 20 times. I'm not disagreeing with you that a comprehensive replacement of the current theory would require an explanation of the CMB, preferably a better one than we have now: one that doesn't predict the wrong expansion rate or break the Copernican principle (our solar system is aligned with the CMB).
My guess is those problems won't be solved until some of the fundamental underlying assumptions behind it are abandoned. Time will tell.
I am finding it difficult to imagine how anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology could have written either of those sentences.
Upon further reflection, however, I am finding it unnecessary to wonder why anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology might have written those sentences.
The comoving distance is the proper distance it is now.
To get the proper distance it was when the light was emitted (D_emit), you divide by 1+z again, D_emit = 5.1 billion light years.
So to recapp, the measurements go:
44.0124745362 - distance modulus (D_m)
20.7 Gly - Luminosity distance (D_L)
10.3 Gly - co-moving distance (D_c)
5.1 Gly - proper distance when light was emitted (D_emit)
To visualize this ascii style, let's say the source (S) emits light (*~~) toward an observer (O). In the time it takes the light to reach the observer, the expansion of the universe will push the source and the observer apart.
Code:
S* O
S *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O
|--D_emit--| 5.1 Gly
|---------D_c----------| 10.3 Gly
My confusion is that the measurements we have go from 20.7 Gly, to 10.3 Gly, and yet, the light itself (*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) stretches a distance of less than those. It is the light travel time distance (lookback time * c).
Why do our measurements give us much larger distances than the distance light actually traveled, or the distance of the source when light was emitted (D_emit)?
And for high z's, the luminosity distance can easily be much more than the radius of the observable universe (46 Gly). Why should that be the case?
The main reason I can think of is that the distances are measured as D_emit, and then converted to co-moving, then luminosity distance, then distance modulus for presenting. Is that right?
I am finding it difficult to imagine how anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology could have written either of those sentences.
Upon further reflection, however, I am finding it unnecessary to wonder why anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology might have written those sentences.
The "axis of evil" is a name given to the apparent correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). It gives the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle as assumed in the concordance model.
Guess what's missing from your quote? Any mention of LCDM or heirarchical structures. In fact, no version of the word "heirarchical" even appears in that article, and at no point do they ever even suggest that their results are at odds with LCDM. That isn't what they find, that isn't the point of the article.
As usual, you don't actually understand any of the things you talk about.
Guess what's missing from your quote? Any mention of LCDM or heirarchical structures. In fact, no version of the word "heirarchical" even appears in that article, and at no point do they ever even suggest that their results are at odds with LCDM. That isn't what they find, that isn't the point of the article.
As usual, you don't actually understand any of the things you talk about.
It's spelled "hierarchical", and the hierarchy is the result of galaxy mergers.
If I said 20, and the paper said 18+2, guess what's missing from the paper? "20".
Your proceeding with your arguments using the simplistic of pattern matching algorithms. You're only fooling yourself.
*edit* the article says:
"The confirmation of the presence of very massive quiescent galaxies at epochs only 1-2 Gyr after the Big Bang [1-8] has challenged models of cosmology and galaxy formation [9]."
The very existence of such early red and dead mas-
sive galaxies is a challenge to our present understanding of
the cosmos. The formation of the structures in the concor-
dance Λ-CDM cosmological scenario is inherently hierarchi-
cal (Press & Schechter 1974; Lacey & Cole 1993), with large
structures assembling at later times with ongoing bursts of
star formation
There is no other valid explanation. Hoyle et al tried it and failed. Sciama tried it, and failed. The quasar redshift function was enough for him long before COBE.
"The confirmation of the presence of very massive quiescent galaxies at epochs only 1-2 Gyr after the Big Bang [1-8] has challenged models of cosmology and galaxy formation [9]."
"The very existence of such early red and dead mas-
sive galaxies is a challenge to our present understanding of
the cosmos. The formation of the structures in the concor-
dance Λ-CDM cosmological scenario is inherently hierarchi-
cal (Press & Schechter 1974; Lacey & Cole 1993), with large
structures assembling at later times with ongoing bursts of
star formation "
There is no other valid explanation. Hoyle et al tried it and failed. Sciama tried it, and failed. The quasar redshift function was enough for him long before COBE.
Further, there is no valid explanation of all the features, not even by the currently accepted theory.
It doesn't get all the creation of the elements right, it wasn't predicted at the right temperature, it is suspiciously correlated to the solar system, it predicts the wrong expansion rate, and it has a cold spot and hemispheric anomalies that shouldn't be there.
That's a different paper. And it's overstating things (papers often do that) considerably to attract attention and make itself seem important than it actually is. We don't know what quenches galaxies. So we don't know what significance the timing of when they are quenched makes either. This is indeed a major challenge for galaxy formation models. But what exactly is the challenge? Well, if you actually read the paper and not just the abstract, it's our simulations of galaxy formation and evolution. Computer simulations, which require inputs which we are still largely guessing about, and that we haven't been able to validate because we don't have enough data to reliably compare them to. If you actually read and understand what the paper is saying, you'll find that it matches my description of the state of affairs. It doesn't support the idea that any of this conflicts with LCDM.
But you can't read the papers and understand them, because you don't have the background in any of this to make sense of any of it. All you can do is try to find single sentences which seem to support what you already believe, without any context behind them.
"The very existence of such early red and dead mas-
sive galaxies is a challenge to our present understanding of
the cosmos. The formation of the structures in the concor-
dance Λ-CDM cosmological scenario is inherently hierarchi-
cal (Press & Schechter 1974; Lacey & Cole 1993), with large
structures assembling at later times with ongoing bursts of
star formation "
I just went over this. LCDM is heirarchical, and that's part of galaxy formation. But it's only part. We're missing much of the other parts. And "the cosmos", in this context, isn't simply "cosmology", and it sure as hell isn't just LCDM. We don't understand galaxy formation. That doesn't mean we're wrong about LCDM.
No we don't agree. The BBT is the only valid explanation for the CMB. There are no other models to explain it. Which is why nobody is even trying anymore.
That's a different paper. And it's overstating things (papers often do that) considerably to attract attention and make itself seem important than it actually is. We don't know what quenches galaxies. So we don't know what significance the timing of when they are quenched makes either. This is indeed a major challenge for galaxy formation models. But what exactly is the challenge? Well, if you actually read the paper and not just the abstract, it's our simulations of galaxy formation and evolution. Computer simulations, which require inputs which we are still largely guessing about, and that we haven't been able to validate because we don't have enough data to reliably compare them to. If you actually read and understand what the paper is saying, you'll find that it matches my description of the state of affairs. It doesn't support the idea that any of this conflicts with LCDM.
Let's say these massive, ordered, dusty, and/or quiescent galaxies in the early universe were never discovered, and thus never challenged models of galaxy formation.
That says to me the models of galaxy formation, given 10 billion years, can describe how galaxies become massive, ordered, dusty, and/or quiescent.
Do you agree?
And the challenge comes from understanding how galaxies become massive, ordered, dusty, and/or quiescent given 1 or 2 billion years.
No we don't agree. The BBT is the only valid explanation for the CMB. There are no other models to explain it. Which is why nobody is even trying anymore.
Lol. I have that paper. You haven't read it, have you? It is a philosophical look at the emergence of the big bang as the accepted explanation for the CMB and the failure of other models. The only credit it gives to other models is that there may be interesting science within them, even if they were wrong. As they say;
"Our aim here is not to give a comprehensive account of the history of CMB research. Rather, we have assigned ourselves the much less ambitious task of attempting to understand the emergence of the consensus and the failure of alternatives."
My bolding.
And:
"We do not deal with those unorthodoxies lacking anything particularly original or interesting to say about the CMB phenomenon, including various fractal/chronometric cosmologies, Dirac's large-number hypothesis or tired-light models (but see Sorrell 2008). At best, these rehash the explanatory mechanisms developed by steady-state (or cold Big Bang!) proponents, notably thermalization of background sources on dust grains. In particular, the tired-light models – in which photons lose energy either by interacting with the intergalactic medium or by travelling through a vacuum, i.e. “on their own,” leading to the claim that the universe is not really expanding have been refuted and are even regarded as hallmarks of pseudoscience."
I think I remember now why I downloaded that paper! It references Lerner, so I suppose I thought to myself, "why would anyone reference that rubbish?"
As they say;
"The irony is that, in the end, Lerner cannot sustain the explanation based on plasma cosmology alone and takes refuge in tired-light ideas, eerily similar to Fahr and Zönnchen (2009)! This, more than anything else, demonstrates how low the stock of Big Bang opponents has fallen since COBE."
Lol. I have that paper. You haven't read it, have you? It is a philosophical look at the emergence of the big bang as the accepted explanation for the CMB and the failure of other models. The only credit it gives to other models is that there may be interesting science within them, even if they were wrong. As they say;
"Our aim here is not to give a comprehensive account of the history of CMB research. Rather, we have assigned ourselves the much less ambitious task of attempting to understand the emergence of the consensus and the failure of alternatives."
My bolding.
And:
"We do not deal with those unorthodoxies lacking anything particularly original or interesting to say about the CMB phenomenon, including various fractal/chronometric cosmologies, Dirac's large-number hypothesis or tired-light models (but see Sorrell 2008). At best, these rehash the explanatory mechanisms developed by steady-state (or cold Big Bang!) proponents, notably thermalization of background sources on dust grains. In particular, the tired-light models – in which photons lose energy either by interacting with the intergalactic medium or by travelling through a vacuum, i.e. “on their own,” leading to the claim that the universe is not really expanding have been refuted and are even regarded as hallmarks of pseudoscience."
Fun fact: no model can explain the near-perfect BB spectrum of the CMB. Ergo, there are no valid alternatives. They all score 0%. Because if you can't explain that BB spectrum, your model is dead in the water. And, of course, the long since dead alternatives failed in more areas than just that one. They all died for a reason.
Explaining the CMB without invoking the big bang is pretty much a waste of time, these days. Which is why you won't find much, if anything, in the peer-reviewed literature recently. The old stuff is still there, of course, but nobody is doing anything with it. Its former adherents are either dead, or have jumped ship.
I am finding it difficult to imagine how anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology could have written either of those sentences.
Upon further reflection, however, I am finding it unnecessary to wonder why anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of modern cosmology might have written those sentences.
The "axis of evil" is a name given to the apparent correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). It gives the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle as assumed in the concordance model.
Sorry. I thought you were attributing the near-perfect isotropy of the CMB to the fact that we observe it from the particular location/orientation of our own solar system. That misattribution is common among those who try to argue that the CMB was not caused by a Big Bang and consequent expansion of the universe—which was, after all, the context of your remark.
As it turns out, however, you are talking about a very small anisotropy of the CMB, so small that its significance is still not entirely clear. From the Wikipedia article you quoted:
Wikipedia said:
Chief scientist from WMAP, Charles L. Bennett suggested coincidence and human psychology were involved, "I do think there is a bit of a psychological effect, people want to find unusual things."[16]
Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy....
As of 2015, there is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the axis of evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21] In 2020, Lior Shamir of Kansas State University calculated that spin directions of spiral galaxies showed further evidence of unexpected large-scale anisotropy.[22]
It seems to me there are several interesting questions here.
One question, as indicated above, is whether the anisotropy is even large enough to be anything more than should be expected.
Assuming it is, another question is whether stellar systems in general (not just our own) are aligned with the anisotropy. If there is little correlation between the anisotropy and stellar alignments in general, then the alignment of one particular solar system is probably just coincidence.
Shamir's research, cited in the quotation above, suggests a possibly quite different anisotropy, raising the question of whether there is any connection between the alleged "axis of evil" and the apparent anisotropy found by Shamir.
In my opinion, these are extraordinarily interesting questions, inasmuch as they present some small hope of providing greater insight into what happened during the early moments of the expanding universe.
In short, I agree with Lawrence Krauss, whom that Wikipedia article quotes as saying:
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
It should be noted that the part I highlighted is a rhetorical flourish. Krauss himself does not for a moment believe the anisotropy is "telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe". He is highlighting the silliness of that explanation as a way to focus attention on the more realistic alternatives: (1) "maybe the data is simply incorrect", and (2) "maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results", a weirdness that would be interesting because (3) "maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."
As a student, I was never taught anything at all about the CMB. I am not a physicist or cosmologist. Everything I know or think I know about general relativity, cosmology in general, or the CMB in particular comes from self-study.
One thing I know, for reasons quoted in the spoiler, is that the small anisotropy of the CMB that Mike Helland has cited as though it overturns all of mainstream cosmology does not have a snowball's chance in hell of overturning all of mainstream cosmology.
There is no other valid explanation. Hoyle et al tried it and failed. Sciama tried it, and failed. The quasar redshift function was enough for him long before COBE.
Fun fact: no model can explain the near-perfect BB spectrum of the CMB. Ergo, there are no valid alternatives. They all score 0%. Because if you can't explain that BB spectrum, your model is dead in the water. And, of course, the long since dead alternatives failed in more areas than just that one. They all died for a reason.
Explaining the CMB without invoking the big bang is pretty much a waste of time, these days. Which is why you won't find much, if anything, in the peer-reviewed literature recently. The old stuff is still there, of course, but nobody is doing anything with it. Its former adherents are either dead, or have jumped ship.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
