JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE SHOWS BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN? WAIT…

[MeganC]

The unexpected new data coming back from the telescope are inspiring panic among astronomers

James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…

Webb was expected to merely confirm the Standard Model of the universe but its images are “surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.”

mindmatters.ai

Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” [Update: Kirkpatrick has protested Lerner’s handling of this quotation. See Note below.]

ERIC J. LERNER, “THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN” AT IAI.TV (AUGUST 11, 2022)

Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.

Now, Lerner is the author of a book called The Big Bang Never Happened (1992) but — while that makes him an interested party — it doesn’t make him wrong. He will be speaking at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in London (September 17–18, 2022) sponsored by the Institute for Art and Ideas (IAI), as a participant in the “Cosmology and the Big Bust” debate.

The upcoming debate, which features philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg and Yale astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan, along with Lerner, is premised as follows:

The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.
Do we have to give up the theory of cosmic inflation and seek a radical alternative? Might alternative theories like the Big Bounce, or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are such alternatives merely sticking plasters to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang altogether?

 

[MeganC]

"SCIENCE!!!!"

The true-believers in the religion of science are right now being confronted by actual science that proves their dogmatic orthodoxy to be in error.

BUT...before the Young Universe creationists get too excited notice that the observations here are indicating that the universe is probably much older than the 15bn years that was previously believed among astronomers and now it's believed to be much older if not eternal.

An infinite and limitless universe without beginning.

Something that only God could or will ever understand.

 

[PeteR]

One of my favorite teachers just made a video about this article... He's pretty funny, at points..

 

[Mark C]

A BIG part of the reason I appreciate physics (almost majored there) and, by extension, astrophysics, is that it is Real Science. (...unlike 'evolutionary biology' or AGW or whatever the Great God Fauci is High Priest of)

Because when new data, or observations, show up which blow a hole in the previous - by definition - "theory", they actually pay attention to it. The theory needs to be modified, or even thrown out the window. Time for a new theory.

Compare that to those other non-sciences (really, just fake religions) where no amount of evidence will allow the dogma to be altered, much less change what is mandated to be taught in "Publik Skools."

 

[LDremoved]

 

[FollowingHim]

This is a very interesting developing story, thanks for raising it @MeganC, it's great to watch such scientific debate happening in real time - and to see how desperately scientists cling by faith to their old views and find it very difficult to be shaken by new evidence. Regardless of the outcome of this astrophysical debate, the debate among astrophysicists will take decades, then it will take decades more for it to filter out to other fields of science and the general public. Expect the standard model to be in school textbooks for at least 50 years after it is disproven, that's how this always goes.

BUT...before the Young Universe creationists get too excited notice that the observations here are indicating that the universe is probably much older than the 15bn years that was previously believed among astronomers and now it's believed to be much older if not eternal.

Not exactly, as that's just one way the images can be interpreted. The James Webb telescope has simply photographed fully formed mature galaxies in regions of space that according to the Standard Model should be very very old. And according to the Standard Model should therefore have been at an early stage of formation.

If you are already of the opinion that the universe is ancient and the standard model seemed correct, then try and make the bare minimum adjustment to that model to make it consistent with the observations, then the logical interpretation is that the galaxies are even older than expected, started forming earlier, and by the time we are observing them are already fully formed.

But if you take a second look at the whole theory, for instance "abandoning the speed of light" as suggested in your last quote, then those galaxies may not be old at all. If the speed of light is not a constant (which is actually debatable), and distant starlight has actually travelled here much faster than the standard model predicts, then those distant galaxies may be an equivalent age to our own galaxy, and their present appearance would have nothing to do with the age of the universe. This makes the observations at least equally consistent with a young or an old universe.

 

[MemeFan]

It can't be than speed of light was faster than now. This implies that laws of nature aren't constant which implies that science as concept is very flawed.

Science goes from patriculars toward general. If there are no fixed laws of physics then how we be certain in doing induction in science? If after 3 throws of rock out windows and falling to ground will it fail 4.th time?

 

[Aubrey Jo]

Thanks!

 

[MeganC]

But if you take a second look at the whole theory, for instance "abandoning the speed of light" as suggested in your last quote, then those galaxies may not be old at all. If the speed of light is not a constant (which is actually debatable), and distant starlight has actually travelled here much faster than the standard model predicts, then those distant galaxies may be an equivalent age to our own galaxy, and their present appearance would have nothing to do with the age of the universe. This makes the observations at least equally consistent with a young or an old universe.

As I read it the proposal is that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. That doesn't mean radiated light exceeded the speed of light nor does it constitute a justification for the irrational idea that light was stretched.

If I were to instantly transport a flashlight 1bn light years away then the flashlight moved faster than light but the light from its new position will take 1bn years to get back here. To propose that photons of light were placed in motion to give us the false impression of the function of time and distance is to propose that God is a deceiver. It's also a greater leap of faith than the Big Bang was.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of an eternal and infinite universe.

 

[MemeFan]

As I read it the proposal is that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. That doesn't mean radiated light exceeded the speed of light nor does it constitute a justification for the irrational idea that light was stretched.

If I were to instantly transport a flashlight 1bn light years away then the flashlight moved faster than light but the light from its new position will take 1bn years to get back here. To propose that photons of light were placed in motion to give us the false impression of the function of time and distance is to propose that God is a deceiver. It's also a greater leap of faith than the Big Bang was.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of an eternal and infinite universe.

Speed of light is maximum in standard physics. Strange idea. If true it breaks more than Big Bang theory.

 

[PeteR]

As Zach Bauer explains in the video I posted, Scripture tells us how He did it...

He stretched out the heavens...

 

[Mark C]

But if you take a second look at the whole theory, for instance "abandoning the speed of light" as suggested in your last quote, then those galaxies may not be old at all. If the speed of light is not a constant (which is actually debatable), and distant starlight has actually travelled here much faster than the standard model predicts, then those distant galaxies may be an equivalent age to our own galaxy, and their present appearance would have nothing to do with the age of the universe.

A fellow named Barry Setterfield offered a hypothesis way back in 1981 that c, the speed of light in a vacuum (approx. 186,282 miles per second today) has been decaying (decreasing) over time, from essentially infinite at t=0 (whenever that was, which becomes one of the variables in the argument) to the value today. Part of the issue is that accurate measurements of c have only been fairly recent, even geologically-speaking.

But, the implications are fascinating, as noted. And, since "c=constant" is a 'semi-universal' assumption in most of astrophysics, dramatic.

For those with an interest, Lambert Dolphin has an online library of a vast array of articles, many on this topic. Here are a few that outline the concept, and some status:

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml His main index

Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

www.ldolphin.org

THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT - AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS

www.ldolphin.org

This one attempts to measure any decrease:

Speed of Light Analysis

www.ldolphin.org

This one addresses "ZPE" too, another "hot topic" in physics for quite a few years (conspiracies notwithstanding )

THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT

www.ldolphin.org

 

[frederick]

This article from Answers in Genesis is helpful. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/solving-light-travel-time-problem/

 

[FollowingHim]

It can't be than speed of light was faster than now. This implies that laws of nature aren't constant which implies that science as concept is very flawed.

Not at all. The idea that the speed of light is a constant is simply a scientific hypothesis, like any hypothesis must be tested against observational data, and can be proved or disproved without any impact on the concept of science itself.

As is shown in the references @Mark C and @frederick have provided, the historical measurements of the speed of light, although all relatively recent, do suggest an exponential decay in C, not a constant speed. The oldest measurements of C were consistently higher than measurements today, and the measured speed has reduced over time. This may be simply because older measurements were less accurate - which they were - however if it were purely due to experimental error you would expect considerable variation, with measurements both higher and lower than the numbers we see today. This is not the case - the historical measurements were all higher, and also decayed over time in a fairly consistent pattern. If that data is extrapolated into the past, the historical speed of light would have been much higher, and could even have been infinite initially. If so, distant starlight would have reached earth near-instantaneously at the time of creation, and long distances are no indication of long ages.

However it is also possible that the speed of light has always been constant, and all the older measurements were truly higher just due to random error. Both the hypothesis that the speed of light has decayed AND the hypothesis that the speed of light has been constant fit within the error bars of the data we have available. This means that at this stage we truly do not know whether the speed of light is a constant, or whether it has decayed over time, and it would be unscientific to assume that either one of those options is a proven fact.

 

[PeteR]

A fellow named Barry Setterfield offered a hypothesis way back in 1981 that c, the speed of light in a vacuum (approx. 186,282 miles per second today) has been decaying (decreasing) over time, from essentially infinite at t=0 (whenever that was, which becomes one of the variables in the argument) to the value today. Part of the issue is that accurate measurements of c have only been fairly recent, even geologically-speaking.

But, the implications are fascinating, as noted. And, since "c=constant" is a 'semi-universal' assumption in most of astrophysics, dramatic.

For those with an interest, Lambert Dolphin has an online library of a vast array of articles, many on this topic. Here are a few that outline the concept, and some status:

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml His main index

Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

www.ldolphin.org

THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT - AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS

www.ldolphin.org

This one attempts to measure any decrease:

Speed of Light Analysis

www.ldolphin.org

This one addresses "ZPE" too, another "hot topic" in physics for quite a few years (conspiracies notwithstanding )

THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT

www.ldolphin.org

While studying Breisheit about eight years ago, a member of our fellowship who is an engineer did a bib overview of Setterfield's hypothesis and how it seems to mesh with the first nine chapters of Genesis, especially creation. It was fascinating.

Thanks for listing resources.

 

[Mark C]

While studying Breisheit about eight years ago, a member of our fellowship who is an engineer did a bib overview of Setterfield's hypothesis and how it seems to mesh with the first nine chapters of Genesis, especially creation. It was fascinating.

Thanks for listing resources.

YVW. Lambert Dolphin has quite a bit on that topic (including one written by Setterfield's wife) on his site as well.

Upheaval in Physics: History of the Light-Speed Debate