Could some objects survive Big Bounce e.g. now seen with these extreme redshifts by JWST like 25?

[Pinball1970]

And if in some future it would exceed redshift theoretically allowed by Big Bang hypothesis, could it allow to conclude that this object has survived BB?

I suppose so yes, I like pretty pictures by Webb so this is a little above my pay grade

 

[foghorn]

Sure, but problematic would be objects requiring time to form, like black holes.

If you need mass / energy to form black holes then the Higgs field will have to be ‘on’ and that happened just after T=0.
Your OP link says...

To get around this problem, Ferrara and his collaborators propose that primordial black holes—a distinct population of black holes that may have emerged in the first few seconds after the big bang—were consuming gas in the early universe. This feeding frenzy could have released light that we are now detecting with JWST at periods before the first stars formed. Bizarrely, black holes, not stars, might have been the first significant sources of light in the early universe.

So, for their idea, the Higgs field was 'on' already.

 

[Pinball1970]

Your question is essentially if later we find something before the BB wouldn't it be before the BB?

I think it is a good question.

 

[Jarek Duda]

If you need mass / energy to form black holes then the Higgs field will have to be ‘on’ and that happened just after T=0.

This is for inflation hypothesis.
However, e.g. all experiments show conservation of baryon number - if indeed it cannot be violated, seems these baryons would have to survive BB (?)

 

[Pinball1970]

Sure, but problematic would be objects requiring time to form, like black holes.

What is in doubt now from my understanding is the Lambda CDM model/models, they do not explain or predict these massive, bright and old objects.

 

[Pinball1970]

This is for inflation hypothesis.
However, e.g. all experiments show conservation of baryon number - if indeed it cannot be violated, seems these baryons would have to survive BB (?)

Penrose's model does not have a period of inflation. His CCC model.

 

[DaveC426913]

The CMBR is radiation from about 380,000 years after the BB, Z= 1189 (Ish - you can check)
So this tells us nothing about T=0 or before.

And if in some future it would exceed redshift theoretically allowed by Big Bang hypothesis, could it allow to conclude that this object has survived BB?

You are asking "if we were to find an object that is outside our understanding of cosmology, could we conclude we have more to learn?"

The answer to that would be: yes.


But it seems to me that, if our current highest Z is about 50, and CMBR is 1189, we are nowhere near T=0, let alone beyond it. Which means any discussion about negative T or Big Bounce is - not merely premature - but entirely non sequitur. It's a category error.


It's a bit like saying "We keep detecting ocean closer and closer to the North Pole. Lately we've detected evidence of ocean as far North as 75 degrees North latitude. Do you think, if we were to ever detect ocean beyond 90 degrees North Latitude, we can conclude that ocean can survive floating above Earth?"

 

[Pinball1970]

You are asking "if we were to find an object that is outside our understanding of cosmology, could we conclude we have more to learn?"

The answer to that would be: yes.


But it seems to me that, if our current highest Z is about 50, and CMBR is 1189, we are nowhere near T=0, let alone beyond it. Which means any discussion about negative T or Big Bounce is - not merely premature - but entirely non sequitur. It's a category error.


It's a bit like saying "We keep detecting ocean closer and closer to the North Pole. Lately we've detected evidence of ocean as far North as 75 degrees North latitude. Do you think, if we were to ever detect ocean beyond 90 degrees North Latitude, we can conclude that ocean can survive floating above Earth?"

I still think these are legit questions and not bad for a lay person, stating as a lay person!

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

All it likely means is that the Universe is older than theorized and that the big bang story needs some modification.

 

[Pinball1970]

All it likely means is that the Universe is older than theorized and that the big bang story needs some modification.

No, it means the models of star/galaxy/BH formation are earlier and faster.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

No, it means the models of star/galaxy/BH formation are earlier and faster.

Only if you're hung up on the current big bang story.

 

[foghorn]

I think I've just found a 'hole' in my post #22 about needing ‘mass’, and hence the Higgs field to form black holes.
It seems even without 'mass' you maybe able to have black holes forming from the the high energy photons back then.
The process of black hole forming could have been faster in the denser universe back then, that is, more chance of interactions and no need to go looking for what happened 'before' T=0.

And black holes, which are some of the most massive objects in the universe, holding court at the centers of most galaxies, can in principle be made entirely from massless things. You can make a black hole entirely out of photons, in principle. In practise most black holes are made from ordinary matter, but ordinary matter’s mass is mostly from atomic nuclei, and as we just noted, that doesn’t come entirely from the Higgs field.

profmattstrassler.com

 

[Pinball1970]

Only if you're hung up on the current big bang story.

And what is that?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

The universe started from a small hot dense area, possibly a singularity. Then under went expansion with a period of accellerated expansion, formed the elementary particles, and then evolved to the present state.