After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

[admin]

For decades, measurements of the universe's expansion have suggested a disparity known as the Hubble tension, which threatens to break cosmology as we know it. Now, on the eve of its second anniversary, a new finding by the James Webb Space Telescope has only entrenched the mystery.

After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed? : Read more

 

[THE_MAD_BOMBER]

After having been aware of this topic for many years, I now think that the "scientists" don't know what they're talking about!!!!!!

 

[Subtle]

James Webb has broadened our understanding of the universe. It hasn't broken anything.

The only thing that is broken is the goofy sensationalism that surrounds every discovery.

According to sites like this one, physics doesn't even exist anymore BUT you spend more time seriously pushing a religion based on the matrix. That religion is called Simulationism.

 

[KMcB]

Adam Reiss discussed this subject during a recent panel hosted by World Science festival. Jo Dunkley, who studies the origins and evolution of the universe, was also on the panel. Together they talked about the different methods they used to measure the Hubble constant and the differences in their results. Neither of them resorted to the kind of misleading and sensationalist language used in the title and body of this article.

Reiss explained that their measurements come “from opposite ends of the universe” (Dunkley’s measurements examine the early universe, whereas Weiss’s measurements are taken from stars in nearby galaxies.) Reiss also stated “what’s so profound about this is we may both be right, and it may be that the story of the universe that allows us to connect the beginning to the end that is a little bit different in some way.”

Anyone interested in the panel discussion can find it at World Science Festival website or on their YouTube page. Title is “Searching for Cosmic Origins”. Variances in the Hubble constant is touched on several times, but the main part of that discussions starts at 1:03:27.

Cosmology isn't broken or breaking. Conflicting ideas and fierce debate are a normal part of science. They don’t mean anything is broken, but are signs that things are working as they should.

 

[TorbjornLarsson]

To add to what KMcB said, I agree that JWST hasn't "broken" cosmology but that the ongoing work confirm that science and scientists work as they should. Even if today's supernova results were a fact the DES survey results showed that the universe would follow standard LCDM (being flat, i.e. having the same equation of state).

A recent paper [that I can't find in my browser history right now] confirm that. They include supernova results by using modern extrapolation methods of systematic errors and find that there isn't any tension in near universe observation. The result prefer the far universe Hubble value, suggesting that indeed there may be systematic measurement problems with the cosmic ladder that it underestimates.

And Planck results tell us that if there is a problem with the ladder, it lies above the pivot scale z ~ 0.005 which is beyond the Cepheid scale. JWST can probe supernova distances that far, it just hasn't yet. Until then these articles are "misleading and sensationalist".

Meanwhile results have come in on suggestions that the early universe dark energy can alleviate the supernova result's problems. Turns out it cannot but BAO results assure us that LCDM is valid for high z of 5 < z < 1 and as a result they get H_0 = 67.9 +/- 0.4 km/s/Mpc. ["Canonical Hubble-Tension-Resolving Early Dark Energy Cosmologies are Inconsistent with the Lyman-α Forest", Goldstein et al., accepted by Phys. Rev. Lett.]

We also have a suggestive update from the in principle fully independent near universe gravitational wave method. From eight localized GW events and using one single telescope distance for one of them, they get H_0 = 67.0+6.3−3.8 km/s/Mpc. ["Cross-correlating dark sirens and galaxies: measurement of _H0 from GWTC-3 of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA", Mukherjee et al., arxiv preprint.]

The article itself is problematic when it inserts the ever vanishing MOND from the long standing LCDM critic Kroupa. His latest work rests on the assumption that there is an extremely large supervoid. But the KBC void that the paper analyse is a proposed void associated with our own Laniakea Supercluster. It is not known yet if it is inconsistent with standard cosmology: “It is debated whether the existence of the KBC void is consistent with the ?CDM model. While Haslbauer et al. say that voids as large as the KBC void are inconsistent with ?CDM,[6] Sahlén et al. argue that the existence of supervoids such as the KBC void is consistent with LCDM.[7]”

The accompanying article on Freedman's upcoming JWST work is interesting though. "'It could be profound': How astronomer Wendy Freedman is trying to fix the universe", Ben Turner, LiveScience.

 

[MrjubejonesPNW]

I hate the name. So does my firstborn who is reminded of the hatred this man had. Stop honoring men by naming equipment after them. This guy doesn’t deserve it. Give them letters and numbers so my child can participate. You know women contribute too, right, NASA?

 

[Dave Tacoma]

In 2019 Zbigniew Osiak published a paper saying that Einstein's formulas for energy in special relativity are wrong. The (rest) mass-energy equivalency law, E_0 = m c^2 (where c is the speed of light) according to Einstein should be E_0 = m c^2 /2 , Osiak found. Also, the general energy formula (per Einstein E = g m c^2, where g=sqrt(1/(1 - (v/c)^2)) with v the particle velocity, is the "Lorentz factor", that makes it impossible to accelerate an object to c, the speed of light) should be E = g^2 m c^2 /2. So, in addition to a factor of a half, like the rest mass energy, the general energy formula has an extra Lorentz factor, that approaches infinity as a, say, elementary particle's velocity approaches the speed of light. So if Osiak is correct, the very early universe , which consists of a lot of relativistic elementary particles (for a short time as a quark-gluon plasma) has a total energy that is greater than expected according to Einstein relativity by a truly huge factor. So it seems reasonable that such a huge amount of extra energy density might lead to star and galaxy formation more rapidly than the Einstein-relativity based cosmological models predict.

So is Osiak relativity correct? How could such mistakes in special relativity have gone overlooked for over a hundred years? The answer is, the errors weren't overlooked. They were made deliberately because the correct formulas can be easily shown to violate energy conservation. A physical law that violated energy conservation was unacceptable to Einstein (and many co-workers such as Tolman and (later) Rindler and Penrose). However, the energy nonconservation is actually nearly impossible to measure because it occurs only under very extreme conditions such as in the early universe. Also, the quantity P_0 = g m c^2 is a conserved quantity (the temporal component of four-momentum) that is also important in Osiak relativity. The Osiak kinetic energy is actually equal to the classical formula E = p^2 / 2m, where p = g m v is the (relativistic) momentum. The Einstein form of kinetic energy only reduces to the classical form in the classical (low velocity) limit.

Until fairly recently, the idea of energy non-conservation was unthinkable to most or all physicists. After dark energy was proposed, however, some quantum gravity guys proposed energy non-conservation as an explanation for dark energy. All this was prior to the Webb launch but the paper I read was after Osiak published, still they do not seem to be aware of it.

In basic inflationary cosmology, gravitational potential energy from an unknown source (Guth thought originally the Higgs field but it didn't pan out) causes cosmic inflation. It's easy to suppose that energy nonconservation in special relativity can manifest in general relativity as gravitational potential energy. This would be a difficult thing to prove observationally, but if a modified cosmological standard model incorporating Osiak relativity can be constructed, it can be compared with the Webb results, and the matter of whether Osiak relativity is correct can be settled.

I think there is an easier way, though, to prove Osiak is correct. Not trivial, but not cosmological. It involves an old idea of Stuckelberg, that Richard Feynman was fond of, that antimatter particles move backward in time. Osiak relativity also predicts this in a much more straightforward way than in Einstein relativity. I think it could be observable directly.

 

[Dave Tacoma]

Thanks. There is a lot there. It represents a lot of work by me actually. What Osiak found is amazing, but I don't think he understood the history. After I saw Osiak's paper and realized it solved the problem I was stuck on, I reproduced all his equations. Then I studied it historically. Einstein said about the energy formulas as he published, "It's best to keep things simple". It seems obvious he understood the natural form of relativity (based on the Minkowski equations of motion) is a lot more complicated than what he settled on. But it's far richer. If you google "Osiak relativity" you can find his paper for free and I think my "comment" paper will appear perhaps even first. It's only on researchgate but it's free. Still a draft but almost done. Doesn't have a chance in heck of getting published in Foundations of Physics, probably, but they're getting it soon. Osiak is there too.

 

[Frankincense-Myrrh-Gold]

For decades, measurements of the universe's expansion have suggested a disparity known as the Hubble tension, which threatens to break cosmology as we know it. Now, on the eve of its second anniversary, a new finding by the James Webb Space Telescope has only entrenched the mystery.

After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed? : Read more

"....it all started with a bang."
Big assumption of course, since no one can actually confirm it. Plus the "..unknown imbalance.." in matter versus anti-matter makes the whole idea into some kind of supernatural event - completely devoid of what is allowed in so-called "science"!
What if all the matter was created and formed into a ball of water 1 light year in diameter and then expanded - with the expansion being accompanied by the creation of stars and galaxies as we k now them?
How would one be able to tell a difference between this and the big bang? I propose that no one would be able to tell the difference. YMMV.

 

[Daemonnice]

Cosmology, astrophysics has for some time wondered off the path of science by inventing hypothetical undetectable virtual stuffs everytime there is a failure to predict. Hubble Telescope revealed well formed galaxies too close the alleged big bang, so they invent dark energy. So far they have failed their burden off proof in proving its existence. And this has not been the first failure to predict for BB.
Vera Rubin observed not enough mass in galaxies to explain their rotation. Again instead of questioning the physics, they invent a hypothetical undetectable stuff called dark matter. Again they have failed their burden of proof as every researcher looking for this dark stuff has come up empty handed.
To the unenumbered mind these failures to predict are refutations. They invalidate these models, yet, to the minds encumbered via emotiomally investing in them, they cannot see it. Their faith in these models is profound and innapropriate.
If gravity is not the dom force in space as Vera Rubins observations suggest, then it also puts Einstein's GTR in the scrap heap as it is considered by many to be the mechanism for gravity.
The universe is not expanding, the BB did not happen, gravity is not the dom force in space and Einstein's GTR is no longer relevant.

Be warned, any disrespectful insulting comments only prove your confirmation bias and emtional attachments.

 

[mdswartz]

You gotta believe in nature. The universe is everywhere, the laws of nature apply in the universe, everything occurs in the universe, everything occurs naturally. The big bang did happen, but it was a natural occurrence in the greater universe. It resulted from a release of primordial matter into open spaces in the universe that broke the bounds of gravity, and since the only source of primordial matter in the universe is inside black holes, it must have come from a black hole. To come from a black hole must mean that the bounds of gravity were broken, but the ever outward expansion we observe in our own section of the universe tells us the bounds of gravity were indeed broken, probably when cosmic mass limit #3 was surpassed, resulting in a pulverizing explosion from a single hot dark dense state as primordial matter transitioned to regular matter into the open spaces of the universe. The force of the blast created a big bang bubble in a pushed back section of the rest of the universe that makes it look like we're unique and alone. Anything that might have been in the way was pulverised or pushed back, except the biggest black holes and galactic cores were moved less and partially held their relative positions in the new section of the universe, but they were mostly stripped of their stars, which were pushed away. These galactic remnants became some of the drivers for galaxy formation in the new section of the universe. For 9 or 10 billion years the force of the blast powered expansion of our section of the universe, but as that section grew the force waned, and gravity from the rest of the universe has now become primary, and we've begun falling in all directions into the rest of the universe at an increased rate, faster near the edges as they get closer, but our measurements will vary slightly depending on how close we actually are to the outer edges. All natural, no funny stuff, the only belief you need is that the big bang broke the bounds of gravity, but our observations of our own section confirm that. I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #1 regular matter transitions to neutron star, I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #2 matter transitions from neutron star to primordial matter of bottled up quarks and nuclear forces squeezed to the center of a black hole, and I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #3 primordial matter transitions to regular matter in a big bang, I just know that's what matter does because we've seen evidence of all those transitions. Eternal God, universe and nature.

 

[TheBox]

For decades, measurements of the universe's expansion have suggested a disparity known as the Hubble tension, which threatens to break cosmology as we know it. Now, on the eve of its second anniversary, a new finding by the James Webb Space Telescope has only entrenched the mystery.

After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed? : Read more

I fixed it along time before James Webb

Human beings cannot see 1 dimensionally , they can only see 2d and 3d .

When a visual 3d object recedes away from you or is a distance apart from you , the object becomes a visually 2d object .

The Sun for example is a 2d experience .

When a visual 3d object recedes away from you it changes to a visual 2d object before changing into a 1d visual object that is out of sight .

As I explained in my theory of realism , Olber's paradox is an optical illusion , there is loads of light between distant bodies but no thing that is within range to be 2d visually .

The darkness between distant bodies isn't darkness , it is transparent and that causes the optical illusion .

 

[mdswartz]

You gotta believe in nature. The universe is everywhere, the laws of nature apply in the universe, everything occurs in the universe, everything occurs naturally. The big bang did happen, but it was a natural occurrence in the greater universe. It resulted from a release of primordial matter into open spaces in the universe that broke the bounds of gravity, and since the only source of primordial matter in the universe is inside black holes, it must have come from a black hole. To come from a black hole must mean that the bounds of gravity were broken, but the ever outward expansion we observe in our own section of the universe tells us the bounds of gravity were indeed broken, probably when cosmic mass limit #3 was surpassed, resulting in a pulverizing explosion from a single hot dark dense state as primordial matter transitioned to regular matter into the open spaces of the universe. The force of the blast created a big bang bubble in a pushed back section of the rest of the universe that makes it look like we're unique and alone. Anything that might have been in the way was pulverised or pushed back, except the biggest black holes and galactic cores were moved less and partially held their relative positions in the new section of the universe, but they were mostly stripped of their stars, which were pushed away. These galactic remnants became some of the drivers for galaxy formation in the new section of the universe. For 9 or 10 billion years the force of the blast powered expansion of our section of the universe, but as that section grew the force waned, and gravity from the rest of the universe has now become primary, and we've begun falling in all directions into the rest of the universe at an increased rate, faster near the edges as they get closer, but our measurements will vary slightly depending on how close we actually are to the outer edges. All natural, no funny stuff, the only belief you need is that the big bang broke the bounds of gravity, but our observations of our own section confirm that. I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #1 regular matter transitions to neutron star, I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #2 matter transitions from neutron star to primordial matter of bottled up quarks and nuclear forces squeezed to the center of a black hole, and I don't know why at cosmic mass limit #3 primordial matter transitions to regular matter in a big bang, I just know that's what matter does because we've seen evidence of all those transitions. Eternal God, universe and nature.

I'll take a guess at why the 3 cosmic mass limits. Limit #2 is required for matter to transition into primordial matter in a black hole to complete the recycling operations and to safely accumulate for a big bang. Limit #3 needs to be gigantic so there's enough matter available for a full section of the universe, because matter knows it might make intelligent life if the right conditions evolve, yet it's still a crap shoot and matter knows that, so the bigger the better. And limit #1, a seemingly irrelevant limit, is only there because if matter is able to form intelligent life, it provides a great clue to the workings of matter in that it's observable and measurable, and we should keep watch. I predict that stellar core transition speeds also break the bounds of gravity, and the core transitions first and the edge forms, faster than free fall speeds of gravity, followed soon by a Titanic supernova explosion caused by rebounding of the residual free falling matter and subsequent surface fusion which comes after core transition. That's a clue for us. The physics geeks jeer and claim core transition occurs at free fall speeds, and they throw equations at me that use the factor for gravitational acceleration. Essentially, they claim it must be at free fall speeds because there's no other force than gravity to make it quicker. That's not proof, that's theory. We need 24/7 observation of supernova candidates like Betelgeuse so we can actually observe a supernova some day to test this prediction, and I predict a core transition faster than free fall speeds, a clue for any intelligent life matter might be able to form if it gets lucky. Eternal God, universe and nature.