I'm going to be very amused if the Steady State Model - an unpopular relic from the 1940s - turns out to be correct.
The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
151–160 of 547 posts
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It the pattern of previous science revolutions repeats, there could come a point where reinterpreting the large existing body of knowledge using a different paradigm would explain an number of "oddities" in a more economical way. Could we train a GPT3 like model with the entire corpus of astronomical research and try to answer some questions that way?
FWIW, I've tried asking ChatGPT to walk through some thought experiments. Things like, what happens if I shoot two bullet at c/2 in opposite directions on a train going at c/2? Now suppose, I'm an outside observer. And then trying to introduce quantum gravity. My thought was that perhaps it could 'reason through'. Unfortunately, it was unable to. Eventually, it said that this is an unsolved problem. In other words, i…
It is going to be like a drunk Michael Ross (the fictional character). I.e. great memory but too drunk to think beyond what can be recalled. If it’s corpus has the answer it will shit it out.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rate is "only" approximately 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec. 68 kps isn't that fast (it's about the same speed as the Helios 2 solar probe) and a mega parsec is big distance (3.2M light years). Its that there's a lot of megaparsecs between here and there and the sum of all of those 68 kps is more than the speed of light. The relevant Kurzgesagt : TRUE Limits Of Humanity – The Final Border We Will Never…
So such an expansion phenomenon should affect everything uniformly right? Are we (people /animals) then getting "bigger"? Over time innthe extreme will it cause problems in signal transmission in our own nervous systems (since apparently we have a problem seeing light beyond the observable limit)
[deleted]
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The edge of visible universe is Big Bang. Or more concretely, the time couple hundred thousand years after Big Bang when the universe became translucent to light. Things cannot "reflect off of the edge of visible universe" because that would require that the light travel back in time which is nonsense. As of this moment we cannot exclude possibility of discontinuities in the universe which would be cause for example…
if time is a dimension, and we can only see the past and the present, could it not be that, if one's gaze were shifted, one could see the future? effectively looking at the "other side" of the dimension of time? looking straight at one "side" of time, you can only see the past and present. but if you had a galactic set of mirrors set up around "time", couldn't you "see" the other side where the future lies? effective…
Or wait until shrooms wear off.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#155I don't know if this instance qualifies as one, but I think its fair to say that cosmology is the one domain of "fundamental" physics where "discrepancies" or question marks keep piling up and not really resolving. It the pattern of previous science revolutions repeats, there could come a point where reinterpreting the large existing body of knowledge using a different paradigm would explain an number of "oddities" i…
There's a joke that calling Computer Science Computer Science is like calling Astronomy Telescope Science, but part of what makes it funny is the ring of truth to it. Our instruments really do limit our observations. The advantage Computer Scientists have is that we can glimpse a world of Platonic Forms[1], where Functions, and Sets, and Information exist, or something close enough for government work, merely through the intellect. Astronomers have no such luxury.
[1] Or whatever circumlocution you prefer to express the same general concept.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I read this, it seems to me like this is more or less the same as saying that the speed of light is decreasing, but I am probably wrong?
Is this something anybody ever thought out to look at things this way? Sounds like an intriguing Gedankenexperiment
Yeah, ideas like this are usually called "tired light" models, they have been extensively explored for the last hundred years or so. A lot of these models have been shown to be false by experiments, but I guess if you try you can probably cook up models which haven't been falsified by anything yet.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the triboelectric effect, and the low-lying mechanisms are poorly understood & poorly characterized.
Reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect , I have the impression the mechanisms are not _that_ poorly understood, at least from my layman's perspective.
It's in the lines:
> The triboelectric effect is very unpredictable, and only broad generalizations can be made.
> The mechanisms of triboelectrification (or contact-electrification) have been debated for many years, with possible mechanisms including electron transfer, ion transfer or the material's species transfer.
> Recent studies in 2018 using Kelvin probe microscopy and triboelectric nanogenerators revealed that electron transfer is the dominant mechanism for triboelectrification between solid and solid.
> For a general case, since triboelectrification occurs for any material, a generic model has been proposed by Wang, in which the electron transfer is caused by a strong electron cloud overlap between two atoms for the lowered interatomic potential barrier by shortening the bonding length.
So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc).
Unless there's a tested model with predictable results, I'd say we're not really understanding it properly.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#158I always wonder if light traveled billions of years to get here wouldn’t it be possible that it got distorted along the way? What if all these galaxies are just a sort of a typical pattern of what light looks like after an unfathomably long journey through space/gravity/time/etc? It could be likely that what we’re seeing is no indication of what was ever actually out there.
It does. One effect of light passing through gravitational wells is gravitational lensing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
There is also Redshift.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the triboelectric effect, and the low-lying mechanisms are poorly understood & poorly characterized.
Reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect , I have the impression the mechanisms are not _that_ poorly understood, at least from my layman's perspective.
[deleted]
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to a wall But the accepted explanation is "static electricity", no? Or do you mean we don't "really" know when asking a couple of follow-up "why?" questions further?
At that point why not call it “witchcraft;” a sciencey word for something is not an explanation.
Clearly you've never recalibrated the thermal interferometery scanner so you can reverse the polarity of the neutron flow in the isoneutronic pulse wave carrier.