Instead of one big bang, imagine an infinite number of big bangs, all colliding on a cosmic scale in time and space. That’s not necessarily a multiverse, but it is a megaverse with universe as the old paradigm.
The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
121–130 of 547 posts
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#122[flagged]
That entire site reads like "what if Elizabeth Holmes set up a power generation company?" Reading up on the company on Wikipedia, it seems to be pretty much exactly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
Yikes, it's BlackLight! I had no idea this joker was still around. For reference: this was popular snakeoil on USENET back in the 90's when I was in college. This is some really crufty nonsense, and I'm kinda shocked it's still being recycled.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#123Is it possible that the 'edge' of universe reflects light? Have scientists been able to conclusively rule that out somehow? Does the universe even have an edge? What is our current understanding of what the boundaries of the universe might be like?
> Is it possible that the 'edge' of universe reflects light? Have scientists been able to conclusively rule that out somehow? It's not an edge the way you think. It's the edge of what we can see based on the known age of the universe and how much light has reached us. I.e no real boundaries as best as we can tell. The best way you can look at this is that early galaxies are being found earlier than expected based on…
An analogy might be the horizon. There is no fixed horizon, it is just the boundary of how far your can view, given both the curvature of the earth and the quality of your eyes. It is relative to where you are on the earth, and by your altitude. So while it is calculable, it isn't a fixed boundary like a river, or a wall.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the light from it won't reach us. This is one of the most interesting aspects to the universe. It's not, "because the light from it hasn't reached us yet but is on the way and will get here eventually." Rather it's that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that we're moving away from parts of it faster than its light can cover the distance to us. It will never reach us. That's mindboggl…
> Rather it's that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that we're moving away from parts of it faster than its light can cover the distance to us. From my understanding, it's not that we're moving away from parts of the universe, but that the distance between us is growing so fast that light sent from one part will find that after traveling toward us for some amount of time, the remaining distan…
> but that the distance between us is growing so fast that light sent from one part will find that after traveling toward us for some amount of time, the remaining distance to travel is actually more than than when it started.
Good clarification, that's what I meant, I guess I didn't say it accurately. I don't actually think of us as moving, but more like the scale of the entire universe is increasing while the ability to traverse it - light speed - remains a constant.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this says less about cosmology and more about the incredibly effectiveness of the standard model in the regime we can test directly on earth. If we compare ΛCDM to most other scientific theories it doesn't look so bad in terms of discrepancies. Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics, there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to…
> 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?
This is the triboelectric effect, and the low-lying mechanisms are poorly understood & poorly characterized.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this says less about cosmology and more about the incredibly effectiveness of the standard model in the regime we can test directly on earth. If we compare ΛCDM to most other scientific theories it doesn't look so bad in terms of discrepancies. Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics, there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to…
> 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.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are not looking back into the past cycle, but we see mature galaxies that date from the previous cycle.
What you're saying doesn't make sense - not even according to the bizzaro theory you mentioned. Even if there was a previous cycle, there would be no galaxies left from it to witness.
I think you are assuming a big crunch?
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#128I 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…
I think this says less about cosmology and more about the incredibly effectiveness of the standard model in the regime we can test directly on earth. If we compare ΛCDM to most other scientific theories it doesn't look so bad in terms of discrepancies. Certainly there are many unexplained effects in solid state physics, there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to…
> there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to a wall
You mean dielectric moments and static electricity? Electromagnetism is the one thing we know the most about. It's that spooky gravity junk that makes us scratch our heads. It never seems to behave quite right and doesn't mesh with all the other forces.
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#129I 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…
Fields of science should always be willing to change based upon empirical evidence.
I think there are several other scientific areas where we know less than we ought.
1. The sub-atomic level
2. The cellular level
3. Ocean biology
4. Geology, particularly effects of earthquakes and volcanic activity
5. Weather patterns over time
Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the light from it won't reach us. This is one of the most interesting aspects to the universe. It's not, "because the light from it hasn't reached us yet but is on the way and will get here eventually." Rather it's that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that we're moving away from parts of it faster than its light can cover the distance to us. It will never reach us. That's mindboggl…
> Rather it's that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that we're moving away from parts of it faster than its light can cover the distance to us. It will never reach us. It's actually even worse than that. Because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, over time the part of the universe that we can observe will get smaller, allowing us to see less and less of it. Eventually, all that we…
Lawrence Krauss to Joe Rogan: "Nothing can travel though space faster than light, but space can do whatever the hell it wants."