Are observations of the CMB and JWST early galaxies compatible?

[Stonius (Markus)]

When detailed maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background were obtained it supposedly confirmed our theories about the universe, yet the JWST's recent observations of colliding galaxies 0.3BY after the big bang refutes them.

Are those observations compatible with each other? (okay, one is about whether the universe came from a singularity, the other is about the timing and order of galaxy formation but still).

Would you expect the CMB to look different if galaxies were forming much earlier than anticipated? Would it make a difference? Or would it look the same regardless?

Does it suggest that physics may not be invariant across time, and that the laws that govern galaxy formation were different back then?

And if that's the case, then when we peer at distant galaxies we are not merely looking backward in time, but backward in the evolution of physics too. That would be cool.

I guess this might make that whole awkward dark matter/energy problem disappear, no?

Just my unqualified ramblings, but it's interesting to ponder, no?

[xelasnave]

It is all very interesting.

It makes no sense that the Universe was created and yet that has been the underlying premise of the big bang theory which is understandable given the world view held by the originator of the theory.


Science can only ever fail when observations follow to fit the original idea...observations should be analysed not made to fit a particular theory if we are to have any hope at determining reality or at least model ing it...

The background radiation is as far as our observations take us and yet to have the theory hold up we must embrace a mathematical contrivance that has no foundation in observation..that of inflation...
The theory was on the way out but saved by the theory of inflation it seems to me...

Perhaps forget the notion that time had a beginning and that a point of creation is necessary...

Can anyone present information that establishes the Universe is other than eternal?

That could be a great discussion if anyone is game to buy in.

Alex

[xelasnave]

The need for a point of creation is evident by the number of scientists and indeed most folk who will talk about the Universe ' coming from nothing" when the "Big Bang Theory" only describes the Universe evolving from " a hot dense state " ....a hot dense state is hardly a "nothing".....so why do we have the suggestion of nothing?...

One can only ask why?

Alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

The only way I can imagine the universe spontaneously bursting into existence is as a quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations can and do produce particles in our own universe albeit on a much smaller scale.
Maybe its the same thing just bigger?

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Stonius

The only way I can imagine the universe spontaneously bursting into existence is as a quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations can and do produce particles in our own universe albeit on a much smaller scale.
Maybe its the same thing just bigger?

Yes I have heard that one....do particles "pop into and out of existence '?

Are you aware of what observation draws this conclusion?

Could it be that our ability to observe particles changes..ie the particles remain in reality but it is our ability to observe changes such that it is convenient to describe them as "popping" into and out of existence...perhaps an extension of the un certainty principle? I dont know obviously but feel by talking may learn something.

I find the notion of existing then not existing nonsense as a knee jerk reaction and certainly before I assign any credibility to the notion would enjoy reading the evidence in support.

So if we follow this 'quantum fluctuation notion" all the particles of the universe somehow popped into existence ... That would seem an extraordinary claim and as such should be accompanied by extrodinary evidence...

Alex

[xelasnave]

Have look at this....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...particles-rea/


alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes I have heard that one....do particles "pop into and out of existence '?

Are you aware of what observation draws this conclusion?
[...]

So if we follow this 'quantum fluctuation notion" all the particles of the universe somehow popped into existence ... That would seem an extraordinary claim and as such should be accompanied by extrodinary evidence...

Alex

The Uncertainty principle suggested that this was theoretically true - I think the Casimir effect with the two steel plates proved it experimentally.


But the idea of the universe being a result of quantum fluctuations on a grander scale is my own conjecture. It just seems like the default state of the universe is particles and wave functions. What we can know about a black hole - spin, charge, mass - are the same things we can know about a sub-atomic particle. A black hole is in effect a very large particle. Does our entire universe taken together also have charge and spin?



I always wonder what happens when the particle passes through *both apertures in the double slit experiment from the point of view of the particle. Does it seem to spontaneously expand from a dense state? Caused by nothing other than the probability of traveling through either slit being equal? No quantum level 'dark energy' is required - its just the completion of a cycle. What state is it in as it travels through both slits? How does it 'decide' how to get through to the other side? Is it in essence a simple quantum computer?



Similarly, the particle/anti-particle pairs that are generated in the quantum foam go through a stage of coalescing to form particles before disappearing again.



I wonder if our entire universe then, is a result of a similar quantum fluctuation just on a larger scale. The big bang, then is the moment the universe had to make a 'probabilistic decision' like with the double slit experiment. Viewed from inside, for a tiny fraction of expanding time, maybe it looks much like our current universe. In other words, maybe the universe as a whole is subject to quantum effects the same as a tiny particle is.



Which is all a long-winded way of saying that in order for that to happen, the laws of physics would have to change over time to allow expansion and contraction. Which would make it interesting if it turns out that that was indeed the case in the early universe. Maybe we just exist in the gaps between macro and micro scales of quantum foam.


All just conjecture, but it's fun to imagine.


Markus

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Stonius

The Uncertainty principle suggested that this was theoretically true - I think the Casimir effect with the two steel plates proved it experimentally.


But the idea of the universe being a result of quantum fluctuations on a grander scale is my own conjecture. It just seems like the default state of the universe is particles and wave functions. What we can know about a black hole - spin, charge, mass - are the same things we can know about a sub-atomic particle. A black hole is in effect a very large particle. Does our entire universe taken together also have charge and spin?



I always wonder what happens when the particle passes through *both apertures in the double slit experiment from the point of view of the particle. Does it seem to spontaneously expand from a dense state? Caused by nothing other than the probability of traveling through either slit being equal? No quantum level 'dark energy' is required - its just the completion of a cycle. What state is it in as it travels through both slits? How does it 'decide' how to get through to the other side? Is it in essence a simple quantum computer?



Similarly, the particle/anti-particle pairs that are generated in the quantum foam go through a stage of coalescing to form particles before disappearing again.



I wonder if our entire universe then, is a result of a similar quantum fluctuation just on a larger scale. The big bang, then is the moment the universe had to make a 'probabilistic decision' like with the double slit experiment. Viewed from inside, for a tiny fraction of expanding time, maybe it looks much like our current universe. In other words, maybe the universe as a whole is subject to quantum effects the same as a tiny particle is.



Which is all a long-winded way of saying that in order for that to happen, the laws of physics would have to change over time to allow expansion and contraction. Which would make it interesting if it turns out that that was indeed the case in the early universe. Maybe we just exist in the gaps between macro and micro scales of quantum foam.


All just conjecture, but it's fun to imagine.


Markus

Ah...the Casimir Effect...a perfect experiment to establish that gravity is a form of universal pressure

Hmmmm particles are particles that is certain and wave functions are mathematical expressions of same ...we can observe a particle but just because we express it with an equation that we call a wave function really does not change the particle ..the particle will remain a particle irrespective of what equation we assign to it such that we can create models.

Well we do not know anything for sure about a black hole ... the model has an event horizon and past that we have no observations..sure attempts with math suggest there is in effect nothing other than an i finity at the centre...now really what does that mean? I doubt very much that our models come anyways close to describing reality... it would be reasonable to describe a black hole as mostly nothingness with an infinitely small but somehow not an infinitely dense " centre".
I would like an observation that evidences this proposition that beyond the event horizon all we have is nothing until we reach the infinitely small central " infinity ".. Consider a black hole rated at billions of solar masses AND wonder just how it's central infinitily small "CENTRE" is capable of manifesting the necessary " attraction" to locate the event horizon at such a great distance from the centre...and remember past the event horizon has never obviously been observed and our model arises purely from math...
I think a fair statement would be "we don't know" in the absence of observation.

I think suggesting a black hole is in effect a particle is speculative.

Double slit experiment. I won't comment other than to say we observe what is happening but do we draw the correct conclusions.

It is good to think about these things even though one will be criticised for dabbling in matters way beyond ones level of education..which is fair..however that is no reason to give up thinking about such things...but I am tired and can't give a good account of a damn thing and can only express an opinion which is a "big bang" seems un likely ... the observations of expansion never did fit and now the observations are starting to suggest that if indeed there was a big bang that it now seems likey that our dating of that event is probably wrong...

Folk say one can't be intuitive in cosmology well I totally disregard such and intuitively can not accept that all we can observe ..the billions and billions of galaxies... at some point in time ( the start of time by big bang reasoning) could be found in a volume as small or smaller than an atom...really think about what we are expected to accept as reasonable then add "the rest of the universe" ie all that which may be outside the observable universe...all to fit into a volume no larger than an atom...

I think that really needs to be thought about.

Alex

[xelasnave]

I saw something saying that the age of the universe is going to be 26 billion years old..

Anything just keep a point of creation I guess

Alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

Yes, I saw that too. It's an exciting time in astrophysics when things stop making sense. It means new understandings are on the horizon. I feel like we've been bogged down in dark energy/matter for too long with no results.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Stonius

Yes, I saw that too. It's an exciting time in astrophysics when things stop making sense. It means new understandings are on the horizon. I feel like we've been bogged down in dark energy/matter for too long with no results.

Yes it could seem that way...I contend that if gravity is seen as a universal pressure then dark matter will not be needed to explain the anomaly with galactic rotational curves...the behaviour fits gravity being a Universal pressure..ie exterior force....in my humble and un educated opinion... just like the plates being pushed together via a universal pressure explains the cassimer effect

I suspect however we will never know if the Universe was created...

If it is infinite it can not have happened via a big bang..you can not double up to become infinite....

alex

[xelasnave]

There is nothing like getting your science from YouTube but this is an interesting presentation.

https://youtu.be/he-5H6ZLHvc

alex

[bgilbert (Barry gilbert)]

The Casimir effect
Radio frequencies are highly attenuated by waveguides that are less than a half wavelength across the narrowest dimension. An example would be when you drive under bridge and you notice your AM radio fades, if you are tuned to an FM station this does not ocurr, the reason is that the FM wave length is much smaller than than the bridge height. Their is such a thing as radiation pressure that exists on the outside and inside the bridge, this means that thei will be a differential pressure above and below bridge because more range of RF frequencies exist above the bridge, low frequecies are cuttoff below the bridge. The Casimir effect is simply this reasoning applied on a much smaller scale. The differential force is much greater on a small scale.