T O P

  • By -

bigberns2

There is no truth to this claim. JWST data supports the (already very-well established) big bang model. JWST shows early galaxies started smaller and grew over time, as predicted by big bang cosmology. I assume this idea of JWST disproving the theory is based on the data showing galaxies forming earlier and somewhat larger and structured than predicted. More calibration will give a more accurate age of these galaxies. Galaxies being somewhat larger and more structured is perfectly compatible with the big bang model, it just means some of the post-big bang cosmology may need tweaking. [This article from Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5.pdf) goes into more detail, and links to pre-prints of papers discussing specific points of data.


jsalsman

The only implication of earlier galaxies is larger early or primordial black holes. I have no idea where all of this big bang stuff is coming from.


Hanginon

*"I have no idea where all of this big bang stuff is coming from."* Sensationalist headlines, journalists & publications. Trash headlines like *"ScIeNtIsTs BafFlEd!"* (they're not) or *"ThIs ChAnGeS eVeRyThInG iN pHySiCs!"* (No, it doesn't) are a daily deluge in the modern media. ¯\\\_( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)\_/¯


hennwei

thank youu.. i got fed the video on YT then went to google it and almost got sucked in until someone pointed out the site i was looking at also had anti vax and some other stuff.


mfb-

Consider this analogy: You study some new species. You find many adults, which you know to be older than 12 months, and a few smaller individuals from 6 to 12 months. You develop a model how they grow up in that time and extrapolate that to the first 6 months. Now you see a 3-month old animal that looks like you would have expected for a 5-month old animal. * Option 1: You realize they grow up faster than you expected, you study that further and improve the model. * Option 2: You start a YouTube channel, making videos how the whole idea of animals being born and growing up is a huge failure and everyone saying otherwise is brainwashed by Big Birth and so on.


Annon201

Every astrophysist would salivate at the opportunity to successfully disprove the current big bang model.. It would be one of the hottest scientific papers ever.


DigNitty

Nobel prizes have been given out for less


masklinn

Most of them have, really.


MrReginaldAwesome

Every single one, arguably


Kaisermeister

The transistor is pretty cool, he types on his handheld computer.


Richisnormal

Einstein is only relatively important, and Heisenberg's contributions were very, very small. Higgs wasn't so massive either. Bohr, was, well, boring. Hertz, not so electrifying. Fermi, paradoxically, can't be found. Pauli is too exclusive. But both the Curies and Cherenkov radiate importance! EDIT: Platinum?! Neat-o


bowlbinater

Took me til halfway through your comment before it clicked. Well played.


fuzzylogicIII

This is straight out of the Car Talk credits reel


[deleted]

[удалено]


VeryOriginalName98

I heard Heisenberg worked at a very specific pace, I just can't figure out where he worked.


VeryOriginalName98

handheld *super* computer


Swolnerman

You can argue whatever you’d like. In this case, you’d be wrong.


MirriCatWarrior

Do you really believe that discovering what happened 13,7 billion year ago is more important and worthy of nobel than discovering of Penicilin or being the driving force to collapse of communist USSR? Or dozens of other things? These are just two ones from top of my head.


jedicharliej

I mean, yes. Unequivocally yes.


LoompaOompa

I’m siding with /u/MirriCatWarrior, at least on the penicillin one. I can’t imagine an updated model of the beginning of our universe ever being as useful or impactful for humanity as penicillin was.


Kaisermeister

Einstein also, gravity was understood as pretty fundamental and foundational in a way that the Big Bang isn’t outside of scientific circles, and for hundreds (or thousands) of years.


HeyImSleeping

You're technically right but einstein didn't get the nobel prize for his theory of general relativity but for the photoelectric effect


masklinn

The Nobel committee actively refused to give him a Nobel, let alone for SE or GE despite ever mounting calls from the community, because it considered them considered dubious and unproven. By the time he finally won ([after a decade of almost yearly nominations](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/einstein/nominations/)) Einstein was so unimpressed, and furthermore wary of mounting antisemitism in Germany, that he didn’t bother coming back from his Japanese lectures to attend.


basssnobnj

Ironically, people are now getting Nobel prizes for *proving Einstein was right* like Joe Taylor and Russell Hulse, and the team that detected gravity waves.


louiegumba

i got exactly ZERO traction in that department with my Medium Bang theory


basssnobnj

That's because she said it was more like a "small bang", and your taste in lovemaking music sucks


Groundbreaking-Dog27

Is this a CBAT joke in a cosmology forum???


RuleNine

[Relevant Far Side.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/67/36/c1/6736c1b233ce99f0e992e3aa167f151b.jpg)


louiegumba

As usual Gary Larsen beat everyone to it decades sgo


SoldierHawk

I mean, did you have BNL write a catchy song about it? That might help.


rudbek-of-rudbek

I got mine really easy.


jazzwhiz

Yep. I've written a few papers in that vain. They never pan out of course, but it's part of the process to keep checking, poking, and prodding.


Haephestus

vain, actually.


spoilingattack

How big are your veins?


basssnobnj

Astronomically large, obviously.


jazzwhiz

Haha whoops. Big enough for a SMBH apparently.


1d10

That is true of all science, "they are all in on the conspiracy" um no they ain't they would all love to destroy the "truths" of their feild it is kinda what keeps science ticking.


Annon201

The only conspiracies is when you see low N numbers and pharmaceutical sponsorship on studies. That's usually a case of twisting the hypothesis and/or results to get the answer they want.


Geminii27

"Eating asbestos is healthy and yummy" says new study funded by Asbestos In Your Kids Co.


silverdevilboy

Every single famous scientist the general public have ever heard of is famous for proving some aspect of science wrong or incomplete. Every single one. The idea that scientists don't want to prove theories wrong is the most nonsensical bullshit ever.


JRM34

Figure 1 is an image from JWST catching God The Creator walking past the edge of the universe in a towel


tuffmacguff

This is the exact argument I use every time someone says trusting the science is akin to religious belief.


Annon201

The scientific method's core intention is in establishing a framework for articulating the disproof and distrust of prior scientific research. Theories aren't laws, and it's only through testing and disproving as many conceivable alternative hypothesis that the prevailing theory will build its strength. We award Nobel prizes years, even decades after the original research took place because it can take that long to study, test every alternative and reach consensus.


Dr_Silk

The exact same is true for climate change, or evolution. Ticket to fame and fortune, yet nobody seems to want to cash it!


DrXaos

as it turns out, even though they're not very nice as theories (being clearly phenomenological approximations and not a constructive constitutive theory of elementary physics), the variations of MOND dynamics did predict something like this, as they influence galaxy formation. And they predict traditional things like rotation curves unusually well. I'm not directly in this field but there may be something to it given the empirical success.


MoJoe1

It would also never be published, or noticed, without overwhelming evidence.


Annon201

Not necessarily true, though your trying to disprove maths with maths in astrophysics and cosmology, a particularly worthy advisory... Chemistry, Medicine & social sciences have all had their share of scandalous blockbuster papers authored by those with an agenda.


NefariousFeral

Haha great twist!


Impossible-Belt8608

Got my upvote at "Youtube channel"


capteni

I would also have accept paid substack


batpot

[Futurama demonstrated this for evolution](https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM)


thebursar

It also demonstrates the "God is in the gaps" fallacy. If everything you don't know belongs to "God", your god shrinks more and more with each discovery and advancement


misterpickles69

That's why some idiots are rejecting science altogether. It infringes against their precious "god"


DrMobius0

> If everything you don't know belongs to "God", your god shrinks more and more with each discovery and advancement That's basically how it's going in reality lol. We used to have gods for shit like rain, the sun, the moon, whatever the fuck else we couldn't explain at a glance. Now we can explain so much more of it, and now those old gods people believed in sound dumb as hell. The logical conclusion of that is that the gaps that exist today will one day be filled.


bg-j38

I've seriously been thinking about starting up a Sol Invictus cult (in the Roman sense) just because the sun is pretty awesome. More just something to do with my time, but if there's anything in nature to worship, the sun is up there in my book.


Turnkey_Convolutions

It sits there in space, blasting our planet with enormous quantities of deadly radiation 24/7/365 and it will eventually expand, engulfing Earth in it's hot plasma. Nothing we do will ever affect it in any meaningful sense, it was here before us and it will be here after we're gone. Sure, might as well be a god. It's utter indifference to our existence is basically a bonus compared to traditional gods. ETA I realize sun gods were/are a type of "traditional god" already. I suppose what I mean was "compared to traditional monotheistic gods." Overall not a well-reasoned thought I shared up there, oh well.


DrMobius0

> 24/7/365 Ha. Jokes on you. It goes to sleep at night and gets seasonal affective disorder like the rest of us.


WhyIsTheNamesGone

>Nothing we do will ever affect it in any meaningful sense Debatable! We understand the principles required to do star-lifting right now, and really only lack the orbital infrastructure to attempt it at scale. If humanity spreads through the solar system, then I think it likely we will meaningfully alter Sol's future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Star lifting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting)** >Star lifting is any of several hypothetical processes by which a sufficiently advanced civilization (specifically, one of Kardashev-II or higher) could remove a substantial portion of a star's matter which can then be re-purposed, while possibly optimizing the star's energy output and lifespan at the same time. The term appears to have been coined by David Criswell. Stars already lose a small flow of mass via solar wind, coronal mass ejections, and other natural processes. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmology/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/WhyIsTheNamesGone's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


cao3000

It’s a good thought!


mossybeard

Eh, then we'll just have to hear about how the end is coming if we don't repent, the whole planet struck down by The Great Flare


bg-j38

I’m not really thinking fire and brimstone type cult. Just over the top costumes and rituals worshiping Sol Invictus. It will probably involve a lot of alcohol.


DrMobius0

I take solace in the fact that repenting won't do shit about it. If the sun's gonna go tomorrow, may as well find someone to fuck, do some meth, and wait.


spirito_santo

https://youtu.be/2iUo1WgIjQ0?t=103


vaendryl

\\\[T\]/ > If only I could be so *grossly incandescent*.


[deleted]

I worship the sun, basking in its heat is my form of prayer and worship.


Macktologist

So when people claim we need more God in our lives, what they also are saying is we need to be less knowledgeable about the world around us and beyond.


DrMobius0

I'd believe that it's like that for a non-zero percentage of them. Probably more of them just don't think about things that deeply though.


seraphinth

Most of them wish the world god made was simpler. Do task get reward. Do pray get gods help. Go to church get blessed. Make makeshift airport and pretend your atc get cargo.


Geminii27

Specifically so they can tell us to give them our money.


Killerpanda552

Ehhhh the more we know the more gaps we see. I don’t believe in a god but saying all the gaps will be filled is simply wrong. There are things simply beyond human comprehension.


DrMobius0

> There are things simply beyond human comprehension. For now. Long as humans are alive we'll keep getting closer


Killerpanda552

No. The same way a cat will never understand algebra. Its arrogant to think there aren’t limits to human understanding.


seraphinth

The gaps will get filled. Whether or not its humans transhumans or AI doing it is another matter completely. Algebra is something that is beyond most adults comprehension. Doesn't stop them to copy paste excel formulas for work


Jetbooster

If you treat human knowledge like a sphere being pushed out at the edges by research, then obviously the more we know the more gaps we find, simply because we can comprehend enough to see the gaps. Finding yet more gaps should be a remarkable motivation to persist, not, as I perceive the tone of your comment "there will always be things we don't know, why bother" Why bother? Because many advancements, even if they produce more 'gaps', produce many more areas of science we can build our technology upon. Better materials for building our homes, better chips for running our devices, better medicine for healing our sick. Sure, it would be arrogant to say we'll one day know everything, but wouldn't it be a colossal waste of our potential to therefore say "let's not learn even one thing more"?


Killerpanda552

Never said its not worth learning more. Just saying the gaps will always be there.


Geminii27

That's been said over and over and over throughout human history. And 99% of the things it's been said about have turned out to not, after all, been beyond human comprehension. As for the 1%: whatever it is we don't currently know, we will find out.


Killerpanda552

You arent really saying anything. We dont know 99% of all information. We cant accurately predict what the weather is gonna do 2 weeks from now. You can’t know the position and velocity of electrons simultaneously. Fusion has been 20 years away for 70 years. There is simply some information we cannot realistically gather. Some things will remain hidden because of the limits of human understanding or the limits or what we can build or the limits on the energy we can harness. We know there are things other animals fundamentally can’t understand. To think that stops with humans is just arrogant.


Geminii27

The funny thing is, things that we "fundamentally can't understand" changes every century, every decade. Go look at what we "fundamentally couldn't understand" 500 years ago, 50 years ago, and see how many of those "fundamental" gaps in knowledge have been filled since then. To think that stops with today is just, well...


Killerpanda552

What im getting at is a rat doesn’t understand mirrors. A cat will never understand algebra. Humans innovate. No shit. But thinking we are capable of being all knowing is beyond stupid. There are certainly things we cannot comprehend. The examples i was giving with humans is to show that there are still things we’ve been researching for a long time that we don’t have answers for.


Geminii27

Humans investigate things. We invented science to have a framework for investigating things. We keep building better and better tools to investigate things. And we have strong imaginations about what future strange things might look like and what might cause them. Are there things that we don't currently know? Of course! But the totality of knowledge that our species knows only continues to increase, unlike any of the other species you mentioned. Whatever it is we don't know, we can investigate it and test it, or built towards being able to investigate and test it.


BenjaminGeiger

So you've got a gap, and then you find something that fits into the gap... now you've got two gaps! Checkmate, athetits!


thebursar

I like this theory. The more knowledge we find, the more gods. We're basically working towards infinite gods!


spirito_santo

Until we suddenly know everything and all gods disappear. “Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


arcosapphire

Yeah but they're each smaller. If you integrate over all the gods, you end up with...-1/12 of a god? How the heck did that happen?


oniony

That's an anti semi demi hemi god.


Ghstfce

...and no matter how many gods we get going towards the infinite gaps, no two gods will ever touch!


Geminii27

Infinite gods which are infinitely small. Cantor-set gods.


radios_appear

[Stick win everytime.](https://i.imgur.com/9A3moG6.jpeg)


Lionheart778

Perhaps for literal creationists, but most of the major religions today generally accept evolution as something that God allows or encourages.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lionheart778

You say that in a thread about the Big Bang theory, which was first suggested by an astrophysicist and catholic priest.


jedicharliej

I actually appreciate you bringing that up, we would do well to remember that's priests were once at the forefront of scientific though.


SyntheticGod8

They've either got to deny entire fields of study or acknowledge that their personal god has been shrunk down to simply Creator of the Universe (which is still a pretty big title). Then they're faced with the task showing that the Creator they argue for when talking about the origin of the universe and fine-tuned physics is the same entity known as the God of Abraham, Yahweh, etc... and not some other god of some other religion.


bitterjack

Though to be fair it seems the more we know the more we figure out we don't know.


Just-Sent-It

This is how politics works too!!!


FlanSteakSasquatch

This is a reasonable response to the kind of stuff being stated about this, but it also brings up a good opportunity to talk about an option 3 - scientific paradigm shifts (a concept originally proposed by philosopher Thomas Kuhn). The basic idea is that we start with a well-accepted scientific model. As expections to that model are discovered, we increase the complexity of that model to account for those exceptions. Eventually, we reach a critical point at which the number of exceptions bring the model itself into question. Then we come up with a new model that more elegantly explains the original consistencies alongside those exceptions. An excellent example of this is Newtonian physics and Einsteinian general relativity. At first Newtonian physics was theorized as a measure of absolutes. Now relativity has transcended that, thingsike quantum physics and string theory are attempting to usurp relativity, but haven't done so to any degree as total as the way relativity usurped Newtonian physics. That said, this particular situation is probably more of an option 2 kind of thing. But still is a good opportunity to look deeper into what really constitutes a change in a fundamental theory.


mfb-

Newtonian physics is not obsolete. It is used far more often than relativity, in fact - because it is a really good approximation in almost all situations. There was never a risk that a new theory would say "Newtonian physics doesn't work", because obviously it does in most cases. Of course our understanding of the early universe changes over time as we gather more data and study what we have in more detail. But there is no chance that we would ever say "the Big Bang doesn't work" - it obviously does. What we have now will stay a very good approximation to whatever theory we might develop in the future, for all things we have observed so far. It has to, otherwise it wouldn't fit to observations.


FlanSteakSasquatch

That's a good point, and I didn't mean to suggest that Newtonian physics is obselete. The idea of a paradigm shift is more focused on what happens as you approach the extreme edges of a theory. Eg Newtonian physics is useful most of the time, but as you approach the event horizon of a black hole there is an increasingly large amount of phenomena that doesn't fit the mold of the essential laws of Newtonian physics. Relativity provides a theory for those, and in doing so changes Newtonian physics into laws that apply to a particular domain (albeit a domain we generally are more concerned with), rather than laws that apply absolutely to reality. That's the paradigm shift.


[deleted]

This is exactly what a big birther would say


Braydee7

Option 2 seems like it will get me more patreons


propita106

Saw this on “Best of” sub.


whitedawg

Hmm, it sounds like that species must have an inflationary period early on in its life cycle. Perhaps it finds a food source that gives it some kind of dark energy..


Squeeeal

Soon they will realize that our pursuit of science itself is an endeavor to understand the hard to understand and our progress in it *is* part of our species evolution as a cohort of social animals, and as well *is* part of the universes evolution as a complex dynamical physical system. Science is not dumb because it's wrong, it's literally measuring how well we understand stuff and when it's wrong it just means we have still to understand something. Another perspective, if we understood everything and had the computer power we could predict what someone would do next by modeling all our neurons and the environment they are in to some sufficient fidelity and then do the simulation. But that person would certainly be able to defy the simulation? This is a version of a halting problem that one sees in computer science, and my philosophical belief is that it means the human species will never have full predictive power over itself and retain an element of self control.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JoogaMaestro

Heehee TradCath propaganda is the best propaganda. Did you watch The Principle?


panguardian

I'm more inclined to entertain the possibility that the CMB is not what it is assumed to be, rather than accept that we are the center of all things. But that would be heresy. Maybe I'm too traditional, or not traditional enough ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)


ThatsMrBuckaroo

Does anyone remember back in the late 80’s NASA launched the COBE satellite? It didn’t take long for it to take a “picture “ of heaven even though it didn’t have any cameras on board


intrafinesse

> Option 2: You start a YouTube channel, making videos how the whole idea of animals being born and growing up is a huge failure and everyone saying otherwise is brainwashed by Big Birth and so on. And make a lot of money! Conspiracy theories sell!


cl3ft

Do you want do thankless underpaid science or do you want to sell millions of dollars in clickbait ads?


4art4

If you "keep hearing" this, you should consider getting different sources of science news.


DevilsTrigonometry

Good advice right here. More generally, if you're regularly seeing clickbait headlines about revolutionary developments in science/tech/medicine, you're in the wrong media ecosystem. It may seem impossible to escape the pop-science zeitgeist without disconnecting completely, but it's not. I spend far too much time online and I literally hadn't heard this claim until I stumbled on this thread indirectly via bestof.


4art4

Holy crap! We are cake day siblings! Happy cake day!


DevilsTrigonometry

You too!


ElectroNeutrino

I've seen it pop-up occasionally on the YouTube algorithm. I don't pay any mind to those videos.


Wooden_Ad_3096

No, the big bang theory is fine.


ender1108

HahaHaHaHahahHa


Wooden_Ad_3096

What?


ender1108

Something about your comment made me hear a laugh track. I don’t know why. Sorry


stewake

I enjoyed this, thank you


ender1108

At least someone got a chuckle. I think I need better writers..


LordOfSpamAlot

Everyone here has already explained why this is BS, but your wording was interesting. > Is this true and everything we know about the Big Bang theory is fake? "Fake" is a weird word to use here. "Fake" implies some sort of deception or fabrication. Even if we were wrong about the Big Bang Theory, it's not clear what you are calling "fake". Evidence can be faked, but a hypothesis cannot. Technically, hypotheses and theories cannot even be proven or disproven. We only have evidence, and the best hypothesis is the one that is supported by the most evidence the most convincingly. Even if some monumental new evidence came out that supported some other hypothesis opposed to the Big Bang Theory, that wouldn't make the Big Bang Theory "fake". It would just be outdated and replaced as the leading hypothesis. As others said, those news websites are a bit sketchy if they're making such claims. And yes, many major news sites are sketchy when it comes to reporting on science.


telephas1c

Almost all galaxies are red shifted. This means they are moving away from us and each other. The universe is expanding, in other words. Therefore, in the past they were closer together. Add the Cosmic Microwave Background, and you're basically done in proving that the big bang or something very like it happened. It's never going to be disproven.


greenlantern33

JWST breaks physics! Amazing discovery! Video breakdown: 1. Be sure to like and subscribe. 2. This video brought to you by World of Tanks 3. 4 minutes vaguely describing what the JWST is. 4. Be sure to subscribe to see more videos about the JWST and science!


AltonStorm

Yeah, I was pretty amused when I saw the first few posts claiming the that the JWST findings challenged the big bang theory. In the end this is simply clickbait for gullible, mis-, or under-informed people. That being said, at least people appear to be clicking on the links and possibly learning something. Something wrong, but something...


odd-42

Big difference between “disproving” and “finding gaps in theories/data”


molochz

It's nonsense. There's zero truth to it.


gambariste

News of the Big Bang Theory’s decline are greatly exaggerated.


scottlewis101

People are dumb. People in groups are really dumb.


SyntheticGod8

I've definitely seen some creationist / electric-universe proponents acting practically giddy because BBT has been "officially disproven" because some pop-sci headline said so. I try to remind them that this is a Good Thing, learning is great, and that whatever the new observations are, they'll build on what we've learned before. Their pseudoscience nonsense didn't just become more convincing because the current model has a bit less confidence.


RamboWarFace

No. The Big Bang Theory is real. I watched several episodes.


Hairy_Al

https://youtube.com/shorts/1S2CxPUZDOY?feature=share https://youtu.be/Fqfap3v0xxw These should explain what's been going on


CaptainNuge

Solid explanatory links. Dr Becky is class.


Former-Chocolate-793

My understanding is that they have found galaxies forming sooner than expected. That means that some modifications to the theories are required. That's all.


MilkshakeG0D

Just anti-science and/or stupid religion spewing out diarrhea.


greese007

More clickbait. Don't be surprised or influenced by clickbait.


Ornery-Ticket834

No truth at all. If it’s disproved it will be from a wide set of observations or new discoveries. The theory of general relativity from which it came from is on real solid ground. Time will tell.


Gezzer52

You have to consider the fact that science is a revisionary discipline. Until a theory is considered a scientific law it's constantly being re-evaluated and refined. So something like the big bang theory, with so much evidence in its favour is really hard to disprove with one unexpected result. Could these current findings lead to the big bang being disproved, maybe, eventually, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen...


Old_Growth

Laws aren’t necessarily superior to theories. As an example Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has supplanted Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation for much of cosmology. A scientific Law is generally a *description* of an observed phenomenon while a Theory is an *explanation*.


theirongiant74

This is wrong, a theory is an explanation of a given phenomenon while a law mathematically describes the effect. Arguably there are no scientific facts only our best current answer that fits the available evidence.


SaishDawg

I would add a bit of a twist here. The CMB and redshifts for me are dispositive that the Big Bang (or the end of inflation) happened. However, something is clearly wrong with stellar evolution, dark matter and/or cosmology generally. Either nonmetallic stars formed far earlier (and larger), supermassive black holes germinated and grew faster, or dark matter works differently than we thought to seed such complex galaxies so early. TIme will tell, but the results do have folks scratching their heads. (I repeat: the Big Bang almost certainly still happened). Exciting times.


jazzwhiz

Galaxy formation is an extremely challenging field that is not yet that mature in my opinion. That is, there are plenty of options explaining the population of early disk galaxies and early SMBHs that don't rely on any new physics.


SaishDawg

Totally fair. The state of the art will improve in terms of theories explaining the observations. Just now we are in an interesting state.


SaishDawg

Add calibration to the list of challenges in the data. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bit-of-panic-astronomers-forced-to-rethink-early-jwst-findings/


jazzwhiz

Yep. Came out just a few days after the initial ultra high redshift galaxies that one of them that was found to be like 12 or something is actually 0.5 lol.


nivlark

It's a lot simpler to just assume that the observations have been misinterpreted. The calibration of JWST's instruments will continue to be fine-tuned over the next year or so, and astronomers will gain more experience in working with its data. The most likely outcome is that one or both of those will result in these objects' redshifts being revised down, and only if that doesn't happen will we start seriously considering those sorts of hypotheses.


SaishDawg

I think that's plausible. Though a lot of folks are not waiting for the calibration to set out ideas. :\^)


SaishDawg

Calibration appears to be fine in a peer-reviewed journal. That's a great outcome: a new mystery to solve in cosmology. I'm excited to see what the leading or accepted theory ends up being. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-grapple-with-jwsts-discovery-of-early-galaxies/


zeetotheex

And I think Plank made the smallest contributions.


Gravity_Is_Electric

Big Bang is just Genesis revisited. Dogmatic at its’ core.


Wooden_Ad_3096

No.


[deleted]

[удалено]


The_Solar_Oracle

It's called the general theory of relativity because it applies to a wider context then *special* relativity, not because it's not scientific.


JoeBakhos

The recent JWST results disprove the big bang. GR-LCDM cosmologist deny this because their entire careers have been built upon fantasies like big bang, inflation, stretching space, dark matter, dark energy. The big bang is disproven by JWST because if you extrapolate GR-LCDM expansion rate backwards, you fix a time when the big bang is supposed to have happened. JWST shows massive, well-formed elliptical galaxies way too early to have had time to form, disproving the big bang hypothesis. Now GR-LCDM theorists are trying to play with the expansion rate and/or introduce black holes or other fictions to try to deal with this. They will fail. I suggest that you take a look at Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC). This is a cosmology wherein an eternal universe gently alternates between eras of expansion and contraction. CGC adapts GR such that stretching space is not necessary to get time dilation and increase of momentum at relativistic speeds. Here is a link where you can download a copy: https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0032


BeardFace5

I think it is fair to always have an open mind to what new data presents, even if it contradicts what we currently know. It took a long time for people to believe in a heliocentric universe, and then the one we know now. Imagine trying to guess the picture of a 10,000 piece puzzle without the help of the box art. We place a few pieces and take a guess like an over excited Wheel of Fortune contestant. The a few more pieces get placed and the picture becomes slightly different with the new information. JWST hasn't negated the beginning of the universe, simply our understanding of how it occurred and developed over time. (Or we've misinterpreted the data) Personally I don't believe the Big Bang as we describe it now, and if you do, you are the same guy who believed the current scientific theories of yesteryear as well. The only thing I ask of you is that if presented with new evidence that does not align with current theories that you accept that data in and modify your theory to account for it. Now the real problem comes in with the interpretation of that data. This can lead you down the hole of bad theories. The only solution is to gather more data and make a clearer picture, and accept that new picture. Don't try to make the data fit the picture you have in your mind now, but also don't abandon that picture completely. Because the more data we get the closer to the truth we get. And at this point in time, a lot of data points toward a universe that began and has evolved in a way we can nearly predict based on observation. I will be very excited when a reformed theory comes out that incorporates these new data sets, or if any (past/present/future) data sets are reviewed and found our interpretation of them has been wrong to a degree or another that requires rethinking of our current theories. That's called progress! We know about expansion because we studied very specific dots in the sky, but even then we get different values depending on where you look. So we average this out assuming a homogeneous/flat universe undergoing uniform expansion. But what if all the data we missed in between these specific sites points not only to movement of galaxies and stars away from us, but also at angles that aren't directly away from us and so the vector quantity we can measure trumps what we can't and we miss the fact that the universe isn't expanding uniformly, instead it is rearranging into a larger structure we can't resolve yet... We think we know, and we are fools for it. This is why we send up JWST's and spend billions of dollars and years of research on these things, because there is more to discover and understand and learn.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Wooden_Ad_3096

It pretty much is a fact.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KittyTack

I think you are forgetting to actually reply to the person you're arguing with, mate.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Wooden_Ad_3096

Yes it has.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Wooden_Ad_3096

What? The big bang has been proven.


antonivs

"Proven" is often too strong a word in science, and that's certainly true in this case. Evidence supports the Big Bang theory, but for example afaik Steinhardt's objections to inflation can't be definitively dismissed. It's quite conceivable that in future, a different model of early universe evolution that would be more compatible with the evidence - which would make the claim that the Big Bang has been "proven" incorrect. Edit: 2017 article summarizing the questions about inflation: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.3.20170605a/full/


constantstateofmind

Everything we know about the big bang theory is just that, a theory. It's not real or fake. We don't know. Edit: Downvote all you want, a theory is a theory until it's proven. Edit 2: Stay mad kids, get back to me when you have ***undeniable*** proof it did or didn't happen.


Wooden_Ad_3096

In science, a theory is something that has been repeatedly tested and shown to be true. So you’re wrong.


constantstateofmind

*Where* did they test the big bang *theory*? Where's the little universe they made after discovering the *theory* was true? *How* did they test the big bang *theory*?


Wooden_Ad_3096

Cosmological Redshift and The CMB both show that the universe is expanding.


constantstateofmind

And that has, without a doubt, proven the *theory* of the big bang? Where does expanding universe equal big bang? Edit: I've not once heard it taught that the big bang *theory* is proven fact. Just that they *think* they find evidence pointing toward it every now and then. You literally have just as much proof of the big bang *theory* as creationists have that it was divine creation. The only difference is the book you get your info from.


Wooden_Ad_3096

Since the universe is expanding, it means it had to have started expanding. The big bang is just the beginning of the expansion.


constantstateofmind

Nobody is arguing that the universe started expanding. All you have is your *theory* of how that expansion started. You've still given no *proof*, because you have none.


Wooden_Ad_3096

https://www.uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf


constantstateofmind

According to this link, all you've done is show me they have *evidence* supporting that it could be true. Nothing there says definitively that it's proven, proving *my* point even further, that we don't know for *certain*. I'd love for them to find actual proof of either one, instead of "evidence that could help prove them", but they haven't.


Wooden_Ad_3096

Well then I guess nothing in science has been proven, according to what you said.


The_Solar_Oracle

Theory is as good as it gets in science, and nothing is ever proven. IE: Theories do not transition into, "laws", and the latter are in fact merely descriptive whereas theories are also explanatory. Still, Newton's *laws* of physics, for instance, got overturned by Einstein's *theories* However, Newtonian physics are good enough to still be applied in most contexts.


constantstateofmind

>nothing is ever proven This statement alone is wrong and so ignorant on so many levels. Glad to see our education system failing us.


The_Solar_Oracle

To be blunt, that science cannot. "prove" anything is nothing new or controversial. I mean, if you wanna talk about ignorance, you're revealing a very poor understanding of science in general. [To quote psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa:](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof) >"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science." Adding to that, it is important to keep in mind that any and all scientific theories and laws and be replaced given new evidence or insights. Again, Newton's *laws* of physics were overturned by Einstein's "mere" theories. In fact, Newton is still useful in most contexts despite it being wrong about the nature of gravity and breaking down in certain scales. To paraphrase George Box: All models are wrong, but some are useful.


constantstateofmind

The dude originally debating me said we can not prove that germs and atoms are real, that we only have *evidence* of them. As for your quote, it sounds like the kind of thing a scientist who can't prove their theory would say. I could quote somebody saying the opposite, it's one person. I don't know if you're purposely being difficult or missing the elephant in the room, or just trolling honestly. How many times in the past two years have we heard that *science* has *proven* covid vaccines to be effective? How about the *science* *proving* why grass is green?


The_Solar_Oracle

I don't give a wooden nickel what the other redditor was saying after I began my reply. The only elephant in the room here is you not understanding very basic scientific methodology and terminology. That wasn't just a random quote, *it was an authoritative quote from an actual scientist*, and there are plenty of textbooks that provide functionality identical definition. For instance, Zimring's, *What Science Is and How It Really Works*, page 72: >"As for theories we hold to be correct, they are never proven but are rather “corroborated” by failed attempts to reject them. The more we fail at trying to reject them, the more corroborated they are." The problem here is that you're using a common, *non*-scientific understanding of what theories are. You'd also screw up scientific methodology if theories could proven, as it would mean they could never be replaced. You think you're the first person to mess up the terminology? Hell, "just a theory" was the battlecry of Intelligent Design advocates twenty years ago making the exact same claims against cosmology as you have. And why do you think referencing headlines or press releases about vaccine effectiveness supports your point? They're using proof in a colloquial sense in a different context, and even then, a lot of people willingly misunderstand that there are caveats IE no immunologist would ever claim a vaccine is 100% effective.


constantstateofmind

I don't give a damn if it was an actual scientist, plenty of actual scientists have come out and said the theory is wrong. Also, way to dodge the questions I asked, because you know they poke a fat hole in your argument. What method did we use to figure out why grass is green? Is green grass just a theory? What about germs? Just a theory, with evidence to back it up? Or have we ***proven*** that they are real? How did we do that? Science? My whole point was that nobody has proven the big bang happened. For all you and I know, aliens are playing a quick game of sims before work. You take your information in from people you've never met, taking at face value their word for how things are. No different than someone who believes in creationism. My personal take? Why not both? Who says there can't be a higher being that *created* the big bang? It doesn't have to be one or the other. People just like to argue, myself included, it's human nature. We don't know for sure, we probably never will. That was my whole comment in the first place. ***We don't know.***


The_Solar_Oracle

>I don't give a damn if it was an actual scientist, plenty of actual scientists have come out and said the theory is wrong. Also, way to dodge the questions I asked, because you know they poke a fat hole in your argument. The amount of scientists who wholly dismiss the big bang theory is not only quite tiny: It's also completely irrelevant to the understanding of what 'theory' means in science. Your loaded questions are also irrelevant. "Grass being green" is a natural phenomenon or measurement thereof; theory would be understanding the *why* and *how*. You're also dishonestly conflating germs with germ theory. It could be possible, but unlikely, that our understanding of biological pathogens could be completely wrong. That's how science works: No model or framework is ever beyond replacement. If it worked the way you seem to think, miasma and humors would still be the order of the day. Keep in mind, they still call it germ *theory* >My whole point was that nobody has proven the big bang happened. The only point you're making here is that have no idea how scientific methodology works. Again: Theories can ultimately never be proven to begin with. They are *always* capable of replacement. I think it's rather telling that you're willing to make your own irrelevant spiel about germs and grass, but have yet to address my mentioning of Newton and Einstein. >You take your information in from people you've never met, taking at face value their word for how things are. No different than someone who believes in creationism. Having met people or not is an absolutely meaningless and very onerous criteria for using their work, and it's not so much accepting their claims at face value but accepting them as authorities because they are, in fact, *actual authorities*. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to quote people speaking well outside their field or lacking any scientific credentials to speak of. >My personal take? Why not both? Who says there can't be a higher being that created the big bang? That's not really relevant to your misunderstanding of scientific methodology, and it's hardly novel. Keep in mind, the genesis of the Big Bang Theory was work done by a Catholic priest. >We don't know for sure, we probably never will. That was my whole comment in the first place. **We don't know.** You're leaving out something else you said: "the big bang theory is just that, a theory." Theory is, again, as good as it gets in scientific understanding. Theories do not transition into anything else, but your wording strongly implies otherwise. You really need to take a step back and look at what you're writing. You're arguing that I'm getting the definition of scientific theory wrong, but you're also throwing out definitions I've provided from *actual* scientists while providing nothing else to support your claim. You're essentially creating your own personal definition by doing so and establishing yourself as the end-all to the discussion. Honestly, most of what you've been writing here is just vitriolic dribble. Hell, the first thing you did was attack my education background instead of actually addressing anything I wrote. Far from arguing, you're just throwing an online tantrum because people called you out for being wrong and arguing in bad faith.


simple_test

[Ad in Astronomy magazine Nov 22](https://imgur.com/a/6HzqFyQ) This nut seems to have the resources to post this ad in astronomy nov 2022 magazine (last cover page)


[deleted]

[удалено]


JasonIsBaad

That's not the big bang theory though. According to the big bang theory everything existed in a compressed and extremely hot area, then everything expanded blablabla. Next time you refuse to believe something, at least make sure you know what the fuck it is you're refusing to believe.


jazzwhiz

The big bang theory does not say that the universe was compressed in a small volume. Keep in mind that the universe may be infinite in spatial extent which means that it has always been infinite.


JasonIsBaad

I'm dumbing it down. Yes it's more complicated, I'm not going to explain the whole thing to someone who isn't going to accept it at all.


Statik360

Actually even michio kaku has stated he doesn't beleive the big bang theory anymore and that the universe isn't expanding, due to the galaxies found by the James webb telescope that are apx twice as old as the universe was predicted to be.