[Nature] A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang

[Bomby569]

Were there no hypotheses in an attempt to save the theory of a big bang that happened 13.8 billion years ago, that "time", in other words, all processes at the beginning took place at a different speed than in normalized conditions? Of course, for an observer inside the universe who is contemporary with the processes, I don't know if it is possible to perceive a difference.

Maybe not through observation, but there could be some alternative to it.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I am convinced that as part of the universe, we cannot at all properly observe the initial stages (if there were existing) and to reach correct conclusions, many abstractions will be needed. In fact, it is not at all certain that we can prove what the correct conclusions are. So, they may have already been shown by any of the many different hypotheses and variations thereof that lie buried in the dust due to incorrect rejection. Um, there are even still parts of the universe that are beyond our line of sight, and probably some that will never fall into it regardless of the characteristics of the telescopes, unless we learn hyperlight speed, or space folding.

 

[Bomby569]

I am convinced that as part of the universe, we cannot at all properly observe the initial stages (if there were existing) and to reach correct conclusions, many abstractions will be needed. In fact, it is not at all certain that we can prove what the correct conclusions are. So, they may have already been shown by any of the many different hypotheses and variations thereof that lie buried in the dust due to incorrect rejection. Um, there are even still parts of the universe that are beyond our line of sight, and probably some that will never fall into it regardless of the characteristics of the telescopes, unless we learn hyperlight speed, or space folding.

The expansion, the cooling, it all points to a initial stage, pinpointing it may be difficult if not impossible, getting the exact details right is really hard, but the theory still holds strong in my opinion. Nothing changed with this discovery in that aspect i would say, with no degree of certainty

 

[lexluthermiester]

Kip Thorne looked at wormholes and found that a very strong material was needed to keep the mouth open; I found that such a material could be used to defy energy conservation, and so could not exist.

Can. J. Phys. 70, 458 (1992)

We've made a lot of discoveries since that statement was made. M-Theory is a perfect example.

The OP moved to wormholes, so I assume it's still on topic.

As they are related, my guess is yes, we're still on topic.

Nothing changed with this discovery in that aspect i would say, with no degree of certainty

Unfortunately, that only demonstrates a misunderstanding of the subject matter(no offense to you personally of course). Everything has changed. With the age of the Universe no longer in the set range we have been estimating, the theories that detail the events and calculations of projected effects can not longer be trusted and used. We now have to completely reform the equations used as a gauge from which many conclusions are based, including parts of General and Special Relativity. This will not be easy.

 

[Bomby569]

Unfortunately, that only demonstrates a misunderstanding of the subject matter(no offense to you personally of course). Everything has changed. With the age of the Universe no longer in the set range we have been estimating, the theories that detail the events and calculations of projected effects can not longer be trusted and used. We now have to completely reform the equations used as a gauge from which many conclusions are based, including parts of General and Special Relativity. This will not be easy.

Can't agree there, the range was based on estimates not numbers set in stone. Nothing about these discoveries puts the big bang in question, the expansion and cooling of the universe. It just needs further studying, a better experimentation process to get the details right, if we can ever get them right to a point everyone is happy with.

It does create a problem for the methods we used to arrive at some conclusions, and it does pose a serious problem to understand how those massive galaxies form. The theory is based on a chain of events and one of the links seem to be misaligned.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

one of the links seem to be misaligned

Are you sure it's just one? Unfortunately, I'm not an astronomer, nor a physicist, and I don't even know where to look. I'm just guessing there are more reasons why proponents of this theory would blush profusely if asked.

 

[bug]

Unfortunately, that only demonstrates a misunderstanding of the subject matter(no offense to you personally of course). Everything has changed. With the age of the Universe no longer in the set range we have been estimating, the theories that detail the events and calculations of projected effects can not longer be trusted and used. We now have to completely reform the equations used as a gauge from which many conclusions are based, including parts of General and Special Relativity. This will not be easy.

Neah, it could be that some stuff happened sooner/faster than anticipated and the age of the Universe is the same (or barely moved at all). We don't know what has changes, until we make the necessary adjustments.

 

[Bomby569]

Are you sure it's just one? Unfortunately, I'm not an astronomer, nor a physicist, and I don't even know where to look. I'm just guessing there are more reasons why proponents of this theory would blush profusely if asked.

not sure about anything, me and a lot of people now, i think that's the main point to take of this

 

[Space Lynx]

not sure about anything, me and a lot of people now, i think that's the main point to take of this

I'm not sure I am right either, more so it just rubs me the wrong way when I see famous astrophysicists make fun of people who think it is possible things like the Cosmos could be older than 13.8 billion years old, and I have seem them, their tone of voice, word usage, etc talking down to do others as if some of the science is 100% unchangeable. That's what rubs me the wrong way, ironically, those same scientists will then turn right around about other topics within science and say something reasonable like you do, "science changes as we gather more and more information and then re-evaluate, etc"

When in truth, we as a species would grow if we truly braced objective logic and reasoning in every facet of our being without ego. Such a way of thinking may have even prevented the World Wars, but who knows.

 

[bug]

I'm not sure I am right either, more so it just rubs me the wrong way when I see famous astrophysicists make fun of people who think it is possible things like the Cosmos could be older than 13.8 billion years old, and I have seem them, their tone of voice, word usage, etc talking down to do others as if some of the science is 100% unchangeable.

I guess it makes a difference if you can argue that point of view instead of just saying "yeah, I just feel like it's a lot more than 13.8 billion".

And again, if galaxies were found that were previously thought to form much later, doesn't automatically mean the Universe started earlier. It may also mean it started when we predicted it did, only some processes happened faster than we previously thought possible.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Temporal illusions.

 

[the54thvoid]

Deleted a few posts. Not contributing.

 

[Space Lynx]

I guess it makes a difference if you can argue that point of view instead of just saying "yeah, I just feel like it's a lot more than 13.8 billion".

And again, if galaxies were found that were previously thought to form much later, doesn't automatically mean the Universe started earlier. It may also mean it started when we predicted it did, only some processes happened faster than we previously thought possible.

It also makes a difference when you don't belittle people, not saying you specifically, but for who my original post you quoted was meant for.

 

[bug]

It also makes a difference when you don't belittle people, not saying you specifically, but for who my original post you quoted was meant for.

You can not belittle the first flat earther, the second, the third or the fourth one you encounter. But once you've explained (in vain) everything to a dozen of them or so, not belittling them becomes so much harder.
It's still not the right thing to do, I'm just saying I understand how some start doing it.

 

[AusWolf]

All science is an eternal and unchangeable fact until some different science changes it fundamentally a year later.

As for the universe, my theory is that we'll never find intelligent life because the further we look in distance, the further we look in time as well, and the chance that intelligent life existed at those points in time diminishes. If you live on a different planet and you want to see humans on Earth, you can only look at the last ~10k years, which means your planet has to be within 10k lightyears, which is extremely tiny on a cosmic scale. Similarly, if we want to detect life similar to us that came to existence at a similar time on a similar planet to our own, then we can only look at ~10k lightyears, not further. There's not much in this distance, unfortunately. Therefore, if we want to detect life, it has to have been developed millions of years earlier than life on Earth, which isn't highly possible due to the age of the universe (that is, there's probably no life nearly as old as the universe).

Maybe these recently discovered galaxies change my theory?

I hope it's not off topic. Feel free to delete if it is.

 

[bug]

All science is an eternal and unchangeable fact until some different science changes it fundamentally a year later.

This used to be the case until the end of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century, when we were able to formalize things rigorously. Since the theory of relativity showed us our equations held only in the particular case of relatively low speeds and we adjusted equations for that, there were no fundamental changes anymore.
Any further discoveries I expect will do the same: show us what we missed and need to adjust. Not show us we got it all wrong once again.

 

[AnotherReader]

This used to be the case until the end of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century, when we were able to formalize things rigorously. Since the theory of relativity showed us our equations held only in the particular case of relatively low speeds and we adjusted equations for that, there were no fundamental changes anymore.
Any further discoveries I expect will do the same: show us what we missed and need to adjust. Not show us we got it all wrong once again.

Even older theories were correct in the sense that they agreed with the observations at the time. As scientific instruments improved, we found that those theories couldn't explain new observations. Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, one of the problems that General Relativity solved was the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun. Le Verrier, the discoverer of Neptune, discovered this anomaly in 1859.

 

[bug]

Even older theories were correct in the sense that they agreed with the observations at the time. As scientific instruments improved, we found that those theories couldn't explain new observations. Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, one of the problems that General Relativity solved was the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun. Le Verrier, the discoverer of Neptune, discovered this anomaly in 1859.

There's a distinction here between science and theory. What we now classify as science (i.e. verified theory) is what I expect will hold pretty much forever. Theories are another story. We have several of them trying to explain the quantum world and we already know they can't all the correct at the same time. Even though sometimes they can, if we're thinking about how light turned out to be both particle and wave (go figure).

 

[Shrek]

I think they are quantum interpretations as opposed to theories with differing predictions.

 

[AusWolf]

We should not forget that we create science to explain our observations of the world around us, not the world itself. Our observations might change as we evolve.

 

[bug]

I think they are quantum interpretations as opposed to theories with differing predictions.

Indeed, they are called interpretations. But they're really theories about what we observe (and can't make sense of).

 

[Shrek]

We should not forget that we create science to explain our observations of the world around us, not the world itself. Our observations might change as we evolve.

Absolutely, but so far not one observation has defied quantum theory.

Indeed, they are called interpretations. But they're really theories about what we observe (and can't make sense of).

They all make the same predictions, so observation can't decide between them.

 

[AusWolf]

Absolutely, but so far not one observation has defied quantum theory.

I meant in general, not specifically about quantum theory.

 

[bug]

We should not forget that we create science to explain our observations of the world around us, not the world itself. Our observations might change as we evolve.

Another great point.

Over our history, our observations have been limited to a patch of our world and a very basic picture of the sky. The 20th century meant we seriously cut back on the things we haven't looked at yet. In fact, this is what I'm basing my affirmation that I expect current science to hold forever: there are very few place left where we could observe something to turn science upside down. It's not impossible, but all things considered, very, very improbable imho.

 

[Shrek]

I meant in general, not specifically about quantum theory.

One of the most exciting thing is to find a theory is wrong.

Over our history, our observations have been limited to a patch of our world and a very basic picture of the sky. The 20th century meant we seriously cut back on the things we haven't looked at yet. In fact, this is what I'm basing my affirmation that I expect current science to hold forever: there are very few place left where we could observe something to turn science upside down. It's not impossible, but all things considered, very, very improbable imho.

Sometimes one does not even need observation, if there is a contradiction, as was true between Newtonian gravity and relativity.

Science remains at a loss as to what Dark Matter is.