Was the Big Bang wrong?

There are a few papers on black holes in the early universe and quasars but this is is more pertinent to the subject at hand.
Again, NOT a direct challenge on the BB, this is data on early galaxy formation via merger.
Something Cosmology already put forward but as with other areas, Webb provides mote detailed data/spectral data.

There is a link to the paper in the article.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-webb-reveals-galaxy-mergers-solution.html
 
exchemist said:
Formulating a hypothesis is exactly what a detective does when he or she settles on a prime suspect . . .
Click to expand...
No! That simply does not characterise police work. Any detectives reading this?
Crime is so diverse that it is difficult to generalise. There is not always a prime suspect, or he/she may not emerge until late in the case. Formulating a hypothesis does not relate to the work of a scene of crime officer whose purpose is to preserve evidence. There is also a need to detect evidence that may lie beyond the scene of crime. Formulating a hypothesis may be the wrong thing to do if it prejudices keeping an open mind. What is vital it to examine ALL the possibilities that are consistent with the available evidence. Forensic scientists do not so much provide evidence as interpret it. Detectives try to establish a realistic range of possible suspects, which very often includes "the usual subjects". This does not mean that any of them are "suspected" in the usual sense of the word, of course. A hypothesis (if we must use that word) is required, initially, under which each of the suspects could be the villain.
I've gone on long enough.

By the way, UCL has recently created a Centre for Future Crime. But I think anyone expecting to enter the world of Minority Report is in for a big disappointment!
 
back to the topic.....

Here is another example of a misleading headline, if only somewhat, in an article from a JWST observation.

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-team-astronomers-galaxy-shouldnt.html

Dwarf galaxies are small, diffuse, abundant but have far fewer stars than galaxies like ours.
The vast majority are star forming but this one is not.

It is not the first galaxy that has been observed like this and the article conflates the fact they were not looking for it with the fact that these are rarely seen.

This is the way I read it, it does not matter that it was serendipitous, many science observations are!
The actual paper is more measured.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b56

You can see how you can get to:

Paper - rarely seen

Article - Should not exist.

Youtube - BB is wrong.

That is my take.
 
I get a lot of this sort of thing fed to me by various algorithms.

What people need to realise is that "free to read" articles are often little more than click bait. The aim is to suck you in with a controversial or enticing headline (very often exaggerated). Then, you will be exposed to a whole bunch of advertisements as you read through the article. The ad revenue is the primary goal, not dissemination of the science (which is often a thinly-veiled copy from somewhere else, put together by poorly remunerated copy writers).

Listicles are the a common way to suck you in: "You won't believe these five things that the James Webb telescope found!" I have mostly stopped clicking through on any article that doesn't include the main information in the headline, so "Webb telescope makes exciting new discovery!" is not an article I'll bother with.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I get a lot of this sort of thing fed to me by various algorithms.

What people need to realise is that "free to read" articles are often little more than click bait. The aim is to suck you in with a controversial or enticing headline (very often exaggerated). Then, you will be exposed to a whole bunch of advertisements as you read through the article. The ad revenue is the primary goal, not dissemination of the science (which is often a thinly-veiled copy from somewhere else, put together by poorly remunerated copy writers).

Listicals are the a common way to suck you in: "You won't believe these five things that the James Webb telescope found!" I have mostly stopped clicking through on any article that doesn't include the main information in the headline, so "Webb telescope makes exciting new discovery!" is not an article I'll bother with.
Click to expand...
I was initially thrown by your spelling but I see "listicles", a contraction of list + articles, are indeed a thing. Quite a useful way to spot cheapo, clickbaity pieces, it seems. I'll have to watch out for these. Thanks for drawing to my attention.:smile:
 
I should point out as well, that my thread title was a little tongue in cheek. I do find the new conclusions for JWT interesting but I was just having a little fun by making the thread title "Was the BB wrong".

As James mentions, that's the click bait version that you often see in the media when the reality is more as Pinwheel suggested early on. In other examples the media might ask a sensational question (as click bait) only to answer it with something like "No, of course not" :)

"Is Joe Biden going to resign and allow Harris to become President?...No, not a chance" :)
 
James R said:
Oops. Thanks for the correction. I have altered the spelling in my post above. That's the first time I have ever typed that word, I think.
Click to expand...
I toyed with responding along the lines of the note my school physics teacher once wrote on the work of a fellow pupil, who had spelt "vertical" as "verticle", which was "cf. testical". :biggrin:
 
Seattle said:
I should point out as well, that my thread title was a little tongue in cheek. I do find the new conclusions for JWT interesting but I was just having a little fun by making the thread title "Was the BB wrong".
Click to expand...
On Webb in terms of YT posts, there was a string of videos illustrating spectacular images of the Universe. Just what we got right? No issues there.
These images were posted BEFORE all the instruments had been calibrated! It turns out artists has speculated as to the detail and content Webb would send back after it's launch Dec 2021, first light was July 2022.
The images were fantastic BUT not Webb and not telescope images.
After posting on a few, " these are artists impressions not JWST images" I just gave up.
 
I've been watching alot of science stuff lately, the big bang wasn't what I thought. It's not a big bang expanding outward, it happened all at one time everywhere. It's weird and maybe beyond our ability to make sense of logically. Imagine weird-ish hyperdimensions interacting with one another and who knows what else. I'm sure it wasn't entirely right, someday we'll figure this out and get a theory of everything then be like "oh that's what happened."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top