The Big Bang is dead, all hail the next big thing.

[halfeye]

Maybe.

/.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/2...ig-bang-theory

What is the next theory likely to be?

[Rydiro]

Maybe.

/.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/2...ig-bang-theory

What is the next theory likely to be?

Seems it only affects the details of the big bang theory, not the broad concept (things were pretty close together some time ago, then they went apart).

Probably good data for refinement of current theories.

[Palanan]

The Big Bang is fine. No one is panicking. The early JWST results aren’t challenging the Big Bang itself, only models of early galaxy formation. This is exactly what it was supposed to do.

Most of the text in the linked article is from a “science writer” who seems to be a bit of a crackpot. Science writers aren’t astrophysicists, and the fact that one science writer is on a personal quest to disprove a theory has no bearing on the validity of that theory.

As for the rush of new papers, anyone can pop something up on arXiv, but these aren’t peer-reviewed and of course everyone wants to win the race to make bold new claims. Rushed science is sloppy science, and I doubt if many of these will hold up. Best to see which papers actually make it to acceptance and publication before swooning over their supposed upendings of everything.

[Lord Torath]

The Big Bang is fine. No one is panicking. The early JWST results aren’t challenging the Big Bang itself, only models of early galaxy formation. This is exactly what it was supposed to do.

Most of the text in the linked article is from a “science writer” who seems to be a bit of a crackpot. Science writers aren’t astrophysicists, and the fact that one science writer is on a personal quest to disprove a theory has no bearing on the validity of that theory.

As for the rush of new papers, anyone can pop something up on arXiv, but these aren’t peer-reviewed and of course everyone wants to win the race to make bold new claims. Rushed science is sloppy science, and I doubt if many of these will hold up. Best to see which papers actually make it to acceptance and publication before swooning over their supposed upendings of everything.

What Palanan said.

Here's a bit more about Eric Learner, the 'science writer':
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

[Cikomyr2]

"new data seems to invalidate the current evidence-backed model" makes me question the new data first and confirm we aren't misinterpreting

[halfeye]

"new data seems to invalidate the current evidence-backed model" makes me question the new data first and confirm we aren't misinterpreting

The new data is from the JWST, and apparently all the papers submitted from early analysis of that data agree. The JWST could be faulty, but that seems unlikely.

[Cikomyr2]

The new data is from the JWST, and apparently all the papers submitted from early analysis of that data agree. The JWST could be faulty, but that seems unlikely.

That isnt what i meant. I am not saying that the data query is erroneous, but the interpretation of that data.

[Willie the Duck]

"According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur..."

This alone kinda brings into question the writer's understanding of the subject. The previous estimation of the age of the universe was formulated without the information gleaned from the JWST. That we would discover implications for the theory (including potential challenges to its' veracity or support for alternate theories) is to be expected. I also want to know how they know there's 'panic among cosmologists?' -- They list one article by someone with a clear preconceived position, one paper, and one person quoted as saying they question their previous research. This does not a widespread scientific panic make.

It is entirely possible that our understanding of the universe -- including some fundamental accepted prevalent theories such as the Big Bang -- may be radically reshaped by the JWST information. It has happened before -- fine-tuning the measure of cosmic background radiation and inflation came along an upended a bunch of discussions about the shape of the expansion of the universe. However, this is also not our first rodeo, and we're pretty used to people saying that such and such discovery clearly changes everything or proves/disproves something they really do/don't want to be the case well before the analysis is in.

Time will tell, apparently the universe has had a little more time than we until-recently knew. We'll see what the implications of that are...

[halfeye]

That isnt what i meant. I am not saying that the data query is erroneous, but the interpretation of that data.

Yeah, it is the interpretation that is news. This wasn't an evidence based theory, the JWST is the first to see this far into the past, there was evidence that the further we look the more redshift we see, a theory was derived from that observation, but this is the first evidence and it seems to be against the theory. Hopefully we will find a new theory soon, I thought it might be fun to speculate on what that might be, but maybe not.

[Radar]

Yeah, it is the interpretation that is news. This wasn't an evidence based theory, the JWST is the first to see this far into the past, there was evidence that the further we look the more redshift we see, a theory was derived from that observation, but this is the first evidence and it seems to be against the theory. Hopefully we will find a new theory soon, I thought it might be fun to speculate on what that might be, but maybe not.

Not quite like that. We did have loads of evidence for the Big Bang before JWST. The Hubble's law itself was enough to make people build various models thereof and the discovery of the microwave background radiation is a very solid evidence confirming the idea. The important part is, there are many possible models for the Big Bang often with many parameters which can be determined from experimental data only up to some precision. We get more precise data, we revise the models. Some just need a better estimate of parameters, some get binned but the central idea of the Big Bang is perfectly valid as it is still backed up by loads of evidence. It is the same with many other areas of research - most of the time it is evolution and not revolution.

Who knows? Maybe we will get some hints that instead of a definite beginning the Big Bang is something that came after a Big Crunch? But so far that remains to be seen. Or maybe we just need better models for star formation and lifetime cycles in the early and dense universe? Or there is some other detail that would explain the data? There are many questions to be asked and they do not immediately line up for an answer along the lines of "Big Bang is wrong".

[Razade]

What Palanan said.

Here's a bit more about Eric Learner, the 'science writer':
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Eric Learner? The Eric Learner that thinks the Plasma Cosmology is sound, valid and a great hypothesis? The Eric Leaner that wrote The Big Bang Never Happened, a book so panned by science Academia he went on a tear filled tour of why they're all big stupid meanie heads? That Eric Learner? How is he writing for anywhere outside a high school science fair?

Yeah, it is the interpretation that is news. This wasn't an evidence based theory, the JWST is the first to see this far into the past, there was evidence that the further we look the more redshift we see, a theory was derived from that observation, but this is the first evidence and it seems to be against the theory. Hopefully we will find a new theory soon, I thought it might be fun to speculate on what that might be, but maybe not.

Hypothesis. The word you're wanting to use is hypothesis.

[halfeye]

Hypothesis. The word you're wanting to use is hypothesis.

There's a difference?

[Lord Torath]

There's a difference?

In the words of Agent Pleakley: "Here. Educate yourself."

tl/dr: A hypothesis is an idea that explains something. Any idea. A theory is an idea that can be tested. It might not be provable, but it must be disprovable. Not to say it must be dis-proven, but that you can perform tests that have the possibility of disproving it.

[Anymage]

I also want to know how they know there's 'panic among cosmologists?' -- They list one article by someone with a clear preconceived position, one paper, and one person quoted as saying they question their previous research. This does not a widespread scientific panic make.

Incidentally, this popped up on my youtube feed a bit back. So the paper that opens by saying "Panic!" is really just a lame play on the band Panic! At The Disco.

Edit: The paper itself.

[Razade]

There's a difference?

Yes.

In the words of Agent Pleakley: "Here. Educate yourself."

tl/dr: A hypothesis is an idea that explains something. Any idea. A theory is an idea that can be tested. It might not be provable, but it must be disprovable. Not to say it must be dis-proven, but that you can perform tests that have the possibility of disproving it.

This is right (because colloquialisms exist) but also wrong when it comes to science. A Hypothesis can be tested, and it might not be provable and it has to be disprovable. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

A hypothesis graduates into a theory.

[Yora]

The paper explained by an astronomer.