Darn universe.

Gravitational lens gives us a third estimate of the Universe’s expansion
^{— John Timmer · Ars Technica · May 12, 2023}

With such grand scales, uncertainties should be expected, though.
It's not like measuring the front door for replacement.

https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-could-be-a-mirage :eyes: :yikes:

Welp, gotta see more professionals try and make sense out of this. Getting rid of dark matter and dark energy would be helpful.

If the universe is indeed eternal, then the question of our existence is less puzzling, given that in an infinite amount of time, almost anything can happen, and here we are.

It will be interesting to see how they fix these Six Galaxies that appear to be older than the Big Bang allows them to be, in terms of time for formation.

"Because although some analyses indicate that these six galaxies aren’t as massive as first thought, others suggest that they might be even bigger. This indicates that, depending on follow-up observations, we may yet have to remake cosmology – most likely by throwing new cosmic ingredients into the mix to explain the apparent paradox.

“It basically means you’re seeing galaxies before they have time to assemble,” says Charles Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at the Cosmic Dawn Centre in Denmark. “If this is really true, this does mean the standard model of cosmology is broken.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834433-200-what-the-huge-young-galaxies-seen-by-jwst-tell-us-about-the-universe/

It's paywalled, unless you have a way around it.

It will be interesting to see how they fix these Six Galaxies that appear to be older than the Big Bang allows them to be, in terms of time for formation. — Manuel

I haven't come across any evidence or learned consensus that the "Six Galaxies" are, in fact, what they appear to be. It seems more likely than not to me that they are images distorted by gravitational lensing or another spacetime phenomenon yet to be discovered in physical cosmology. 'Dark matter' and 'dark energy', respectively, seem to be much more substantiated predictions than this preliminary interpretation of 'anomalous' JWST images. :chin:

Predictions? I mean, so far as I know they (dark matter, dark energy) are postulates made in order to render serviceable the 5% of the universe we can make predictions of.

These six galaxies might end up having a solution and thus be rendered consistent with what we currently have, but there's beginning to be sufficient data that indicates that we are going to need to change our cosmology quite a bit. How drastic this will be is an open question.

Maybe we need to adjust the age of the universe a bit, or we discover that galaxies can be formed significantly easier than what we first thought. Or what you posted could turn out to be right, that would be most exciting.

Interesting times...

I have read that Penrose is saying these anomalies might support his 'CCC' cosmology, which is the idea that the Universe goes through an endless cycle of expansion and contraction (suggestive of Hindu cosmology). He details the theory in one of his books although I find Penrose's books to mathematically abstruse to understand.

Ahhh, that was Penrose's idea. If I remember correctly, there are a few others that believe in similar things.

I think you would very much enjoy Cosmosapiens by John Hands, he goes over these theories, and a few different ones, other than the Big Bang Model and much, much more. Though not pop-sci, it's not too bad to read at all.

It's quite exciting to see the JWST shake up our model of Cosmology. We still need more and better analysis, but, something needs modification. Took longer than I expected, honestly.

All in all, very cool. :up:

Looks a cool book. Some of those Big History types talk about those kinds of topics (Brian Swimme comes to mind. Oh, and I thought you said 'someone needs medication' but then I read it again. :joke:

Ayyye. We idealists, probably. :halo:

Recently observed 'time-dilation in the early universe' might account for JWST's anomalous "six galaxies" ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/03/astronomers-observe-time-dilation-in-early-universe

That's interesting, will have to wait and see how this pans out, but this is a promising avenue.

Agreed.

What is the purpose of the Euclid space telescope?

https://www.space.com/gravitational-waves-astronomers-why-so-excited?utm_content=space.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3b-iXwDkNyPYphpvQ9RdV0Dl7_IxVaT1Nhgzv2VQnVDVQbeNJQgX-WnjI

Completely off topic. It's not a telescope.

↪Manuel Recently observed 'time-dilation in the early universe' might account for JWST's anomalous "six galaxies" ... — 180 Proof

But would this effect have the opposite result? The anomalous galaxies appear much older than they should be?

Maybe this angle will catch on?

Reinventing cosmology: uOttawa research puts age of universe at 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years (at ScienceDaily)
^{— Bernard Rizk · University of Ottawa · Jul 11, 2023}

DOI 10.1093/mnras/stad2032

Webb Telescope spots Mysterious Question Mark in Space



Is it or isn't it? That's the question!

White hole (instead of "Big Bang"):

How James Webb Changed Astronomy (Primal Space · Apr 23, 2023 · 9m:11s)

the engineering in this array is truly mind-boggling. :scream:

I think you would very much enjoy Cosmosapiens by John Hands, he goes over these theories, and a few different ones, other than the Big Bang Model and much, much more. Though not pop-sci, it's not too bad to read at all. — Manuel

Hands finds relevant ideas for a Philosophy of Cosmology in several ancient myths. He doesn't take them literally though, but as metaphorically relevant. A similar look at cosmology is physicist Joel Primack's The View From the Center of the Universe. He also finds some ancient mythical scenarios pertinent to our modern worldview, including those of the magical mystical Kabbalah.

For example, "But today we can see that the Kabbalistic metaphors suggest a reality closer to our modern astrophysical view than Newton's unchanging empty space does". He notes that "mythology . . . is different from theory because it makes "me" part of the story". Then emphasizes, "There is no deeper source of meaning for human beings than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe". After discussing the re-cycling Ouroboros myths, he concludes that it "helps us understand why this physical/spiritual dichotomy is illusory". "By the 'spiritual' we mean the relationship between a conscious mind and the cosmos".

Although we science-informed big-bang-begat moderns tend to imagine the evolving space-time world as analogous to an expanding balloon, most cosmologists insist that it has no geometric center. But Primack says that it does have a meaningful center-of-perspective: the point-of-view of its curious conscious beings perched on the surface of an insignificant rock on the outskirts of a middling galaxy among a panoply of celestial constellations. :smile:

Yeah - he covers a fantastic deal of territory in that book. We are always going to try some parallels between our "ordinary experience" and whatever science says about the world, it very hard not to do so. We like to have some general intuitions - even if they are mostly misleading in some cases - than "just" an equation, that does nothing for most people.

Sure, as long as we don't find evidence of another intelligent creature, we might as well be the "center" of the universe.

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe, Martin Rees. In his last chapter, the author speculates that the universe is far vaster than we see; that our "universe" is one of very many within it; and that "universes" come and go, their duration and circumstances determined by among other things his six numbers. Fwiw.

I've got that book. Rather a dull read, I will say, but the philosophical implications are very interesting. The point of the six numbers is not that they are one factor among others, but that if any one of them were even minutely different, there'd be no others.

Have a listen to Harry Cliff's 2016 TED talk about the Higgs Field and Dark Energy - and the 'end of physics'.

I saw Nancy Abrams (Joel Primack's research partner) present at SAND 2012. Pretty mind-boggling stuff. Touches on that 'deep history' kind of perspective of Brian Swimme.

"There is no deeper source of meaning for human beings than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe" - Joel Primack — Gnomon

An idea also explored in German idealism

I've got that book. Rather a dull read, I will say, but the philosophical implications are very interesting. The point of the six numbers is not that they are one factor among others, but that if any one of them were even minutely different, there'd be no others.

Have a listen to Harry Cliff's 2016 TED talk about the Higgs Field and Dark Energy - and the 'end of physics'. — Wayfarer

As dull as some of the other books we all love and have read?

A quibble: "there'd be no others"; to be qualified by appending, "in this universe, but apparently likely, even inevitable, in some other - many other - universes." And there seems to be an underlying rule: that what seems unlikely at one scale becomes commonplace at a different scale. Which in turn pushes ultimate questions to further extremes and makes their answers the more remote - although, under this rule, it seems they must likely all fit together in some obvious fashion in some comprehensive description.

E.g., there are 52! possible orderings of a simple deck of cards, which makes the appearance of any of them a miracle. But expand understanding to to include the workings of a deck of cards, and it all becomes a commonplace. Or from a different angle, the game of baseball played according to a set of rules. It can be understood, enjoyed, and played. Or one can delve in to the physics of bat and ball and speed and gravity and friction, and so on, but in that case, baseball itself is left behind and lost. So in some sense at least it becomes a matter not of what something is, but how it is regarded.

I'm tempted to say that 'other universes' is an incoherent idea. The point of the six constraints is that they must be as they are for matter to form, slight deviances lead to totally non-ordered outcomes, i.e. chaos. Whether there might be 'other universes' in which these conditions don't obtain strikes me as the most idle of idle speculations. As remarked in a Scientific American article, 'A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.' I just fall about laughing at that idea - as if the 'proliferation of universes' amounts to 'a tidy idea', and at the lengths that people will go to, to avoid the theistic-sounding implications of the cosmological anthropic principle.

(DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story) By: Ellis, George F. R.. Scientific American, Aug2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43)

I'm tempted to say that 'other universes' is an incoherent idea. — Wayfarer

Well then, I guess God is the only answer. Of course that comes with its own set of problems, not least the violation of natural laws in this Universe. The right answer of course is, "I don't know."

Now it seems to me that appeals to the supernatural represent a discontinuous shift, while the idea of a Universe isn't just an idea, but it appears to be a fact. And to suppose that maybe the universe, the size of which we have no idea, is larger than we suppose, and that it may be big enough to contain other universes - and how shall we define that? - is no more than the leap made in the early 1900s until which time only one galaxy was supposed to exist. The evidence, to be sure, is different, but neither is disqualified.

As to defining "universe," perhaps a place where one set of laws and conditions prevails. Other universes different laws and conditions. Rees makes clear in his own speculations that the particulars would determine the manner and duration of a universe's life. If memory serves, he also references both strong and weak anthropic principles.

And as this is speculation - and may necessarily remain speculation per the TED talk you reference - there's not much room for argument, except maybe against a claim of incoherence: please demonstrate any incoherence.

Fascinating ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/11/newly-discovered-cosmic-megastructure-challenges-theories-of-the-universe

Very much so.

I personally would be in favor of more evidence forcing us to reformulate our picture of the universe. It signifies progress, though if such oddities can be accounted for within our existing theories, then I suppose that's progress too, but it's a bit less exciting.

I'll piggy back this story here even thought it's not JWST - Japan’s lunar lander reaches the moon but is rapidly losing power

Japan’s “Moon Sniper” robotic explorer landed on the lunar surface, but the mission may end prematurely since the spacecraft’s solar cell is not generating electricity, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said. The agency said it is currently receiving a signal from the lander, which is communicating as expected.

If the solar power doesn't kick in real soon now, it's goodnight, mission over.

I really feel for the teams that put these missions together, it must take years of work, thousands of person-hours, and exquisite engineering. So when a mission fails - which happens a lot - I can only imagine how heart-breaking it would be for those teams. :fear: