The JWST Found Something You Wish It Hadn't

[sjastro]

Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, as it slowed down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?

No because you can't explain the enormously high temperatures in the very early history of the universe.

Suppose you have a tennis ball of mass m.
The ball can be described by classical physics were its position and momentum can both be defined with 100% certainty.
Suppose you start shrinking the ball; at some radius r the ball will no longer behave classically but quantum mechanically.
This occurs when the radius of the ball r reaches its Compton wavelength λ.

Now let’s consider running the universe backwards in time so it contracts.
As the universe contracts its density increases and at some point it will not only behave quantum mechanically but as a black hole with an event horizon or Schwarzschild radius Rₛ.
When the Compton wavelength of the universe equals its Schwarzschild radius and classical physics in this case the kinetic theory of gases is used where the universe is modelled as single particle the following mathematics explains why the temperature is extremely high.

A temperature of T = 10³² K is way beyond the current background temperature of the universe at T = 2.7 K and can only be obtained when the universe is not older than its Planck time when the universe was in a quantum mechnical state.
By comparison we have been able to reproduce temperatures in the LHC very briefly at T = 2 x 10¹² K in creating a quark gluon plasma.

 

[Neogaia777]

but the expansion rate is not slowing down, but speeding up.

Faster than it did at the beginning of it...?

 

[Neogaia777]

No because you can't explain the enormously high temperatures in the very early history of the universe.

Suppose you have a tennis ball of mass m.
The ball can be described by classical physics were its position and momentum can both be defined with 100% certainty.
Suppose you start shrinking the ball; at some radius r the ball will no longer behave classically but quantum mechanically.
This occurs when the radius of the ball r reaches its Compton wavelength λ.

Now let’s consider running the universe backwards in time so it contracts.
As the universe contracts its density increases and at some point it will not only behave quantum mechanically but as a black hole with an event horizon or Schwarzschild radius Rₛ.
When the Compton wavelength of the universe equals its Schwarzschild radius and classical physics in this case the kinetic theory of gases is used where the universe is modelled as single particle the following mathematics explains why the temperature is extremely high.

View attachment 323949​

A temperature of T = 10³² K is way beyond the current background temperature of the universe at T = 2.7 K and can only be obtained when the universe is not older than its Planck time when the universe was in a quantum mechnical state.
By comparison we have been able to reproduce temperatures in the LHC very briefly at T = 2 x 10¹² K in creating a quark gluon plasma.

Could you give me your answer maybe to post #33...?

 

[Neogaia777]

No because you can't explain the enormously high temperatures in the very early history of the universe.

I think there could be other possible explanations other than it having to be compacted to an excessively great degree on a single point to start out as either very hot or very dense, etc...

Can you give me your answer to post #33 maybe...?

Thanks.

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

I think there could be other possible explanations other than it having to be compacted to an excessively great degree on a single point to start out as either very hot or very dense, etc...

Apart from the fact it is easier said than done to suggest you can have temperatures of T = 10³² K in a universe that is basically in its current state, a particularly nasty particle predicted by quantum mechanics to have formed in the very early universe when it was very hot and dense, the dreaded magnetic monopole.

These hypothetical monopoles are extremely massive and produced in large numbers in the very early universe.
If it wasn’t for inflation which was an exponential increase in the rate of expansion of the universe, the universe would have collapsed under gravity due to the mass of these monopoles.

In your scenario magnetic monopoles would exist in large numbers in a large universe would cause havoc as these superheavy particles would accumulate in the cores of stars where they can collide with and destroy protons and neutrons which would effect fusion.
Not only would this change the time scale of the evolution of the universe but possibly the very existence of life in the universe itself.

Inflation and the expansion of the universe in general has reduced the magnetic monopole density to levels where they cannot affect the universe and possibly provides a reason why they have not been detected by particle physicists amongst who the consensus is these particles should exist.

Can you give me your answer to post #33 maybe...?

Currently general relativity is the theory of gravity used in BB cosmology.
It is a scale dependent theory which breaks down at quantum mechanical scales resulting in infinite values at physical singularities.
At local scales down to the quantum mechanical Planck scale space-time is static.

This is not the case in quantum mechanics or more precisely quantum field theories.
Space-time has a vacuum energy where virtual particles pop into and out of existence and is dynamic at the Planck scale.

A true singularity cannot exist at the Planck length as a particle or universe at the time of the BB is “smeared out” and cannot have a zero radial dimension which leads to infinite values.
This is one of the goals in developing a quantum field theory for gravity as it will eliminate singularities.

 

[Neogaia777]

@sjastro

I'm not saying the universe was everywhere now, as it is/was in its current state now, back then/there everywhere as it/was now, back then or out there, etc, as it is now, etc...

You do know that some of those terms that you just "now" used have very little meaning don't you...? That when we look at stuff/things in the universe that are that far away, we are actually not seeing it very far away, and are not seeing it (that area that we are looking at) as it is "now", don't you...? But that we are only looking at the universes past, which might be how it was everywhere, don't you...?

I've brought this up before, but let's say you could travel to where a telescope like JWST can or is seeing in a matter of minutes, and could also travel back to earth in a matter of minutes, etc, and let's say, ten minutes, etc, well, if you could go to say, some point that was 13.5 billion lights years away from here or the earth in a matter of ten minutes, you would arrive there at that spot 13.5 billion years later from it's image that you took with a telescope from or while back at earth, plus the ten minutes it took you to get there, and then if you look back at earth from there, you'd then see earth and our solar system/galaxy, or that area or part of the universe, etc, as it was 13.5 billion years ago plus ten minutes, etc, then if you immediately went back to earth, when you arrive, you'd arrive there (back at earth) 13.5 billion years from the image you just took from where you traveled to that was 13.5 billion light years away, plus the 20 minutes it took you to travel round trip, etc...

So the universe is the same quote/unquote "age", "everywhere", etc...

So why could it have not also started out in a very hot or super dense state "everywhere", etc...?

Everything maybe could have just been moving superfast everywhere back then maybe, etc, or there could be still yet another explanation for it maybe, etc, but so far, I still don't see how it could be only 13.7-8 billion years old, and all started from just one single singularity from that time, etc... The universe is just too large, and the time-frame just to small, like I said in an earlier post, etc...

If the age of the universe is correct, then there has to be another explanation for it, etc...

P.S. I would like you to maybe look at post #42 also if you could maybe also, and explain how the universe at first expanded "very, very, very fast" at first, but then had to slow down some, but now has sped/is speeding, back up again in it's growing and expansion, and is still continuing to do so maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

QV please: My Cosmic Evolution Challenge

(Note Post 13 in that thread.)

What, this? - ""Cosmic evolution" appears to be the name given to survey courses and popular science literature as a way of combining information from a wide variety of fields in a coherent and easily understandable way. It is not, itself, a field of scientific endeavor."

You have a strange idea of 'farce'.

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro

I'm not saying the universe was everywhere now, as it is/was in its current state now, back then/there everywhere as it/was now, back then or out there, etc, as it is now, etc...

You do know that some of those terms that you just "now" used have very little meaning don't you...? That when we look at stuff/things in the universe that are that far away, we are actually not seeing it very far away, and are not seeing it (that area that we are looking at) as it is "now", don't you...? But that we are only looking at the universes past, which might be how it was everywhere, don't you...?

You clearly have misunderstood what I actually stated…….
"Apart from the fact it is easier said than done to suggest you can have temperatures of T = 10³² K in a universe that is basically in its current state...."
In this context the current state means when the universe has become large enough to behave at macroscopic scales where classical physics applies and could have happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago.
After all isn’t the whole point of your argument that you don’t need the universe to be at quantum mechanical scales to have enormously high temperatures even though you can’t offer an explanation as illustrated in the next quote.

I've brought this up before, but let's say you could travel to where a telescope like JWST can or is seeing in a matter of minutes, and could also travel back to earth in a matter of minutes, etc, and let's say, ten minutes, etc, well, if you could go to say, some point that was 13.5 billion lights years away from here or the earth in a matter of ten minutes, you would arrive there at that spot 13.5 billion years later from it's image that you took with a telescope from or while back at earth, plus the ten minutes it took you to get there, and then if you look back at earth from there, you'd then see earth and our solar system/galaxy, or that area or part of the universe, etc, as it was 13.5 billion years ago plus ten minutes, etc, then if you immediately went back to earth, when you arrive, you'd arrive there (back at earth) 13.5 billion years from the image you just took from where you traveled to that was 13.5 billion light years away, plus the 20 minutes it took you to travel round trip, etc...

Good grief, I don’t make it a habit of generally commenting on individual’s grammar but yours is so bad it makes your post practically incomprehensible.
What I can make out of this ramble you haven’t addressed the issue of how the universe can heat up to 10³² K at macroscopic scales.
Using the formula KE = (3/2)kT in a macroscopic universe, where KE is the kinetic energy of a single molecule at a temperature of T = 10³² K gives the value of KE = 2.07 x 10⁹ J.

The question in a different format is what process can generate this enormous kinetic energy for a macroscopic universe to be at a temperature of 10³² K.
You are incapable of providing an answer.

So the universe is the same quote/unquote "age", "everywhere", etc...

So why could it have not also started out in a very hot or super dense state "everywhere", etc...?

Everything maybe could have just been moving superfast everywhere back then maybe, etc, or there could be still yet another explanation for it maybe, etc, but so far, I still don't see how it could be only 13.7-8 billion years old, and all started from just one single singularity from that time, etc... The universe is just too large, and the time-frame just to small, like I said in an earlier post, etc...

If the age of the universe is correct, then there has to be another explanation for it, etc...

It has already been explained why your assumption of a BB starting from a singularity is wrong.

(1) The BB occurred everywhere.
(2) Singularities don’t exist in quantum mechanics.

Yet you ignore the answers as if they were never given.

P.S. I would like you to maybe look at post #42 also if you could maybe also, and explain how the universe at first expanded "very, very, very fast" at first, but then had to slow down some, but now has sped/is speeding, back up again in it's growing and expansion, and is still continuing to do so maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

I will not answer anymore of your questions.
I think you are being disingenuous by asking questions when you have already made your mind if the answer doesn't fit your narrative you will ignore it.
I have wasted enough of my time on you.

 

[Neogaia777]

You clearly have misunderstood what I actually stated…….
"Apart from the fact it is easier said than done to suggest you can have temperatures of T = 10³² K in a universe that is basically in its current state...."
In this context the current state means when the universe has become large enough to behave at macroscopic scales where classical physics applies and could have happened yesterday or 13 billion years ago.
After all isn’t the whole point of your argument that you don’t need the universe to be at quantum mechanical scales to have enormously high temperatures even though you can’t offer an explanation as illustrated in the next quote.

Good grief, I don’t make it a habit of generally commenting on individual’s grammar but yours is so bad it makes your post practically incomprehensible.
What I can make out of this ramble you haven’t addressed the issue of how the universe can heat up to 10³² K at macroscopic scales.
Using the formula KE = (3/2)kT in a macroscopic universe, where KE is the kinetic energy of a single molecule at a temperature of T = 10³² K gives the value of KE = 2.07 x 10⁹ J.

The question in a different format is what process can generate this enormous kinetic energy for a macroscopic universe to be at a temperature of 10³² K.
You are incapable of providing an answer.

It has already been explained why your assumption of a BB starting from a singularity is wrong.

(1) The BB occurred everywhere.
(2) Singularities don’t exist in quantum mechanics.

Yet you ignore the answers as if they were never given.

I will not answer anymore of your questions.
I think you are being disingenuous by asking questions when you have already made your mind if the answer doesn't fit your narrative you will ignore it.
I have wasted enough of my time on you.

Sorry if I offended you, I am just trying to figure things out...

I would also like to apologize for my behavior a couple of days ago as well, I was frustrated and a bit fed up, and wasn't having the best of days that day, so I am sorry, ok...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry if I offended you, I am just trying to figure things out...

I would also like to apologize for my behavior a couple of days ago as well, I was frustrated and a bit fed up, and wasn't having the best of days that day, so I am sorry, ok...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Been there; done that myself!

 

[Ophiolite]

It's simple logic if your honest, but maybe you are just way, way too orthodox now to be truly 100% completely objective now anymore, for even a child's logic can clearly see it, etc...

Don't worry though, I really don't expect the scientific orthodoxy to ever change it's views on any of it/that now, no matter how simple and basic it is, etc...

I am on record in multiple earlier post on the forum (and other forums) in expressing my distaste for BB theory. My objections are essentially philosphical (in a populist definition of the word) and aesthetic (I just don't like it). Unfortunately, the evidence currently appears to support it as being superior to any alternative explanations. Nevertheless, I live in hope and relish the appearance of new data, such as that supplied by the JWST, anticipating that just maybe this will be the death blow to BBT, or at least the light at the end of the tunnel.

Alas! As others have noted such is not the case here. I am doomed to continuing my acceptance of current theory (in somewhat modified form, details to be forthcoming), not because I am tied to orthdoxy, but because orthodoxy continues to be the best current bet. I don't like it, but the Universe has often shown a singular disregard for what I like.

P.S. I didn't watch the video, because I didn't have to...

Your open mindedness (sic) does nothing to encourage agreement.