Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings
It's gonna be awesome. I'm betting it destroys the Big Bang Theory, already under assault and somewhat precarious. And much, much more changed, undercut, confirmed, radicalized. The standard picture is going down it says here.
"We may have misunderstood the universe ..." says Nobel physicist. That's just my bet.
More radical change stuff mentioning all the dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang were just ad hoc solutions destined to fail:
More radical change stuff mentioning all the dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang were just ad hoc solutions destined to fail:
Uh, the article actually refutes the statement.
OTOH
Interesting article. Cliff's Notes below.
"We're at a point where we're pressing really hard against the models we've been using for two and a half decades, and we're seeing that things aren't matching up," Scolnic says. "This may be reshaping how we think about the Universe, and it's exciting! There are still surprises left in cosmology, and who knows what discoveries will come next?"
Further predicting AI will laugh at our conceptions of Big Bang, singularity, black holes, particle physics, etc.
It's gonna be awesome. I'm betting it destroys the Big Bang Theory, already under assault and somewhat precarious. And much, much more changed, undercut, confirmed, radicalized. The standard picture is going down it says here.
"Nothing is what we thought ..." I'm doubling down on this is exactly where our model of cosmology is heading.
Venus has been looking particularly sexy these last few days...
We talking Venus Williams or that girl that was on Survivor a few seasons ago?
Come at me bro...
The graceful winding arms of the grand-design spiral galaxy M51 stretch across this image from the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope. Unlike the menagerie of weird and wonderful spiral galaxies with ragged or disrupted spiral arms, grand-design spiral galaxies boast prominent, well-developed spiral arms like the ones showcased in this image. This galactic portrait was captured by Webb’s Mid-InfraRed Instrument (MIRI).
So I was talking with this older guy (93) before our bar-poker league got started a week or so ago.
Don't remember how we got on the subject, but he told me he was a machinist for Ball Aerospace at one point in his career, and helped build the mechanism to hold Hubble's corrective mirror. Pretty cool.
Not directly on-topic, but adjacent. Fun for me as a space nerd to know a guy who helped with the fix.
https://scitechdaily.com/webb-telescope-...
Here's another one about unconventional view finds by JWST. Of course some of these are speculative and click bait. But you are hearing it here first: the whole model is coming down, everything we presume sacred, the "constants," the forces, the laws, the elements, are all changing and evolving themselves.
That's a bigger lock than my Texas Tech pick tonight, which never led for the first 40 minutes. 😀 No worries, it got there. And this Big Duke of Cosmology Theorem is going to get there too. You can put it on the board: CHECK. I'll be hailed as some kind of Newtonian figure.
Spoiler
Side point (I can't remember): who was the old ESPN guy who always said "You can put it on the board."
https://scitechdaily.com/webb-telescope-...Here's another one about unconventional view finds by JWST. Of course some of these are speculative and click bait. But you are hearing it here first: the whole model is coming down, everything we presume sacred, the "constants," the forces, the laws, the elements, are all changing and evolvi
That’s a bold call — love the mix of cosmic theory and college sports confidence.
Definitely makes for a fun read!
Singularity in any conventional sense is eliminated. Big Bang in conventional sense is eliminated. Physical universe as generally held in question. Check, check, check.
Two galaxies colliding 114 million light-years away.
These are two views of the same scene, each showing two overlapping spiral galaxies, IC 2163 at left and NGC 2207 at right. The Hubble Space Telescope’s ultraviolet- and visible-light observation is at left, and the James Webb Space Telescope’s mid-infrared light observation is at right.
In Hubble’s image, the star-filled spiral arms glow brightly in blue, and the galaxies’ cores in orange. Both galaxies are covered in dark brown dust lanes, which obscures the view of IC 2163’s core at left.
In Webb’s image, cold dust takes center stage, casting the galaxies’ arms in white. Areas where stars are still deeply embedded in the dust appear pink. Other pink regions may be objects that lie well behind these galaxies, including active supermassive black holes known as quasars.
Turn your eye toward the bottom right of the Webb image. The largest, brightest pink region that glimmers with eight prominent diffraction spikes is a mini starburst — a location where many stars are forming in quick succession. The same region in the Hubble image appears as a bright blue cluster of stars.
The lace-like holes in the white spiral arms of Webb’s images are often where supernovae exploded long ago. In the same regions, Hubble shows these areas are now populated with newer stars.
The black areas to upper right and lower left of the Hubble image do not contain any data.
Dark energy and dark matter unneeded for acceleration of the universe ... gravity and geometry will suffice. Check.
Susskind(?): Big Bang never happened, no singularity. They are mathematical extrapolations at which point mathematics itself doesn't apply, i.e. is not representing anything real, i.e. fails.
What is at the point where Newtonian physics and General Relativity fail, where the theories are breaking down?
Not a physical singularity. A wave function. Consciousness.
FWIW, mainstream cosmology rejected the idea of a singularity almost 40 years ago.
Not to mention that the term "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by Hoyle who believed the universe was constant, and that the idea of initial rapid expansion sounded too much like Biblical creation.
FWIW, mainstream cosmology rejected the idea of a singularity almost 40 years ago.
Not to mention that the term "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by Hoyle who believed the universe was constant, and that the idea of initial rapid expansion sounded too much like Biblical creation.
Of course, yet both are recited as staples of a model that is actually heading toward oblivion, since I'm of a psychological bent, heading toward about the same status as Freud's "penis envy" is modernly. Just made up shyt that will be seen as ridiculous.
Of course, yet both are recited as staples of a model that is actually heading toward oblivion, since I'm of a psychological bent, heading toward about the same status as Freud's "penis envy" is modernly. Just made up shyt that will be seen as ridiculous.
All you've done is use your own colloquialism to define the scientific method.
Susskind(): Big Bang never happened, no singularity. They are mathematical extrapolations at which point mathematics itself doesn't apply, i.e. is not representing anything real, i.e. fails.
What is at the point where Newtonian physics and General Relativity fail, where the theories are breaking down
Not a physical singularity. A wave function. Consciousness.
Ratio still requires data to relate. I don't think we can say that consciousness creates reality, period. All we can say is that consciousness creates the appearance of a 3 dimensional physical reality. But if we remove the reality of some sort of objective data that physical reality represents it seems like we'd fall into the solipsism.
