Did the Big Bang actually not happen? New Webb telescope images.

I thought that eternal inflation still implied a Big Bang - just that it wouldn't be contained and turn into a Big Crunch or a bounce.

I assume that the JWST could not see back to before the last bounce, so if it can see a lot of galaxies which appear old, that rules those options out together with the Big Bang. Sabine Hossenfelder also pointed out wryly that theorists will always rush in to tweak their theories to bypass any new evidence that puts them in doubt.

I know that Stephen Meyer wrote a book extending the concept of ID to cover the whole universe back to the Big Bang.

I suppose this idea didn't fire me up - partly because I know far less about that sort of physics than I know about molecular biology (because it is easier!), but also because it was (and is) my strong view that a lot/most/all of cosmology is built on extrapolating the laws of physics too far ahead of actual experimental evidence. This problem was sort of discussed in a video discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder that I came across. Basically, every layer of physics depends on the layers below, and if you have to fix something near the bottom of the heap, you have to discard a lot of papers and scientific reputations - so people are desperate to avoid that.

David

From Ethan Siegel, at https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...-universe/:

If we presume that:

● the hot Big Bang, which gave rise to the observable universe as we know it, was preceded by cosmic inflation

● all of the particles and fields within the universe are fundamentally quantum in nature

Then it follows that the existence of a multiverse is all but inevitable. It opens up a rich realm of physical possibilities that include not only parallel universes, but also an infinite number of them out there. If that’s the case, there could even be parallel universes identical to our own, where reality “forks” each time a quantum outcome occurs. Here’s what’s possible within a scientific consideration of the multiverse.

From Ethan Siegel, at https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...-universe/:

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity. Until the day comes where we discover how to extract more information from the universe than presently seems possible, we have no choice but to face our ignorance. The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.

Note: This deliberately and dogmatically excludes the possibility that our Universe with its fine tuning is intelligently designed and created. An argument by assertion, long known to be invalid. He doesn't establish it as the truth, merely assumes it as part of his built-in fundamentalist materialist world view.

Actually, the best explanation of cosmological fine tuning, rather than a multiverse, in many ways is that it is the intelligently directed configuration of the observed cosmos. Needless to say, that conclusion is very unwelcome in many quarters.

Ethan Siegel, at https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...dbf8144727:

...if the theory of inflation is a good one, and the data says it is, a multiverse is all but inevitable.

Note: As physics shades into philosophy and metaphysics (something most physicists won't admit), the multiverse is generated as a figment of the imaginations of those who need it to explain fine tuning (most materialists). If cosmic inflation doesn’t give them a multiverse, they will think up another theory that does.

In the end, inflation theory has collapsed, and along with it the primary proposed mechanism for a multiverse.

From https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...s-critics/:

....In short, the whole purpose of the inflationary theory is negated by its development. It was invented to explain the 1:10^66 fine-tuning of the Big Bang, but in the end, it required 1:10^10^100 fine-tuning. (The first number has 66 zeroes after it, the second number has a hundred, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion zeroes after it.) Steinhardt pleads ignorance as to why he advocated the theory in the first place. At the time it looked like it had just one or two zeroes after the probability, but research added a few more until the theory just wasn’t justified any more.

In the end, inflation theory has collapsed, and along with it the primary proposed mechanism for a multiverse.

From https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...s-critics/:

Would I be correct to say that inflation theory may have collapsed, but this is not yet generally acknowledged by science? The reason is that if I talk to someone offline, I don't want to make a statement about science that turns out to be not well supported.

So Lerner only has a BA in physics?

That makes me wary...

It may be the self-selection effect. If you have a PhD in physics or astrophysics and a great interest in cosmology you probably work in astrophysics or cosmology. But if you do, then you know that if you speak out against the Big Bang you are likely to get squeezed out of your job, with funding withdrawn, etc. So you keep your mouth shut.

So the only people pointing out that the emporer has no clothes, so to speak, are probably going to be not working in the astrophysics field and may not even be professional physicists. But they still know enough to see the truth about what is going on.

Something like the same phenomenon probably also happens in the field of research psychology. If you work in the field and have a PhD in it, you may have due to some quirk of fate become aware of the truth that the rejection of the paranormal by the mainstream consensus of your field is unscientific bias and irrational prejudice, but you keep your mouth shut because you value your career. So the great majority of the books on the evidence for paranormal phenomena are written by laypersons not in academia. With the few exceptions being cases where the authors were retired on good pensions, or where there were unassailable private bequests for such research, such as with the University of Virginia and Bruce Greyson and Jim Tucker and the Kelleys, and before them, Ian Stevenson. (Edit) And also there are cases in other fields where the heretic has secure tenure at a university, like Dr. Michael Behe with ID, at Lehigh University in Pennsyvania.

Would I be correct to say that inflation theory may have collapsed, but this is not yet generally acknowledged by science? The reason is that if I talk to someone offline, I don't want to make a statement about science that turns out to be not well supported.

Probably that would be prudent. A lot of PhDs and careers have been based on inflation theory work, and accordingly there is great resistance on the part of the "mainstream" to acknowledging its failure.

Probably that would be prudent. A lot of PhDs and careers have been based on inflation theory work, and accordingly there is great resistance on the part of the "mainstream" to acknowledging its failure.

I think that is the same story everywhere. Think of the PhD's spent studying Neo Darwinism, or (dare I say) Climate Change - science has become a matter of fashion. If you watch the DI (which I think you do) it is inconceivable that scientists ignore their work on ID - but they do.

I'd love to see a serious review of Halton Arp's work, but I don't think I ever will.

David

Here's the original, longer piece published August 11 by Lerner himself.

 
I wonder if this allows for an estimation for what sort of time scale is involved then for the "universe-formation" period.

Seems like one of the people referenced refers to herself as Allison the Big Bang happened Kirkpatrick on Twitter.

She seemed pretty upset that Lerner used her quote, but has said she endorses this article...which might be sarcasm ->

The Big Bang Theory Has Been Debunked?

This isn't to say I'm wedded to the Big Bang, Penrose's Cycles is more appealing to me.

This article is reminiscent of the sort of debunking we get from psi-sceptics - but this is about astronomy!

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-ja...-big-bang/

I think it is notable for its belligerent tone.

This article is reminiscent of the sort of debunking we get from psi-sceptics - but it is about astronomy!

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-ja...-big-bang/

I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory but I think in this case, Lerner is probably wrong about what the JWST information shows.  In fact, I think his clear anti-Big Bang bias demonstrates an unscientific "hanging on to something" worthy of the worst internet skeptic.

[Laird]

Can anybody explain to me why, Eric J. Lerner having apparently misrepresented the "panic" in an article title, and having apparently quote mined Allison Kirkpatrick, I or anybody else should take this manipulator seriously?

I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory but I think in this case, Lerner is probably wrong about what the JWST information shows.  In fact, I think his clear anti-Big Bang bias demonstrates an unscientific "hanging on to something" worthy of the worst internet skeptic.

As I mentioned in #4, I think the most the new data actually shows is that the date of the Big Bang needs to be shoved back in time somewhat. There are too many reasons why the overall data base confirms that it did in fact happen and explains a lot of things including the CMBR.

An interesting sociocultural observation would be that it is surprising that Mind Matters (which is closely linked to the Discovery Institute) would publish this somewhat anti-Big Bang article, when this would tend to undermine the thesis of some of the DI's leading lights, like Dr. Stephen Meyer, who has I think validly used the existence of a supremely creative beginning of our physical reality at the Big Bang, as the foundation of a Deistic Intelligent Design cosmology.