Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

[Donray]

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.
By Paul Sutter published January 30, 2023
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... -explained

The James Webb Space Telescope, not even finished with its first full year of observations, has delivered some real stunners. But amid the breathtaking images and unprecedented findings, there was a puzzling claim: that the telescope had detected galaxies in the incredibly young universe. Those galaxies were so massive and appeared so early that they, the headlines claimed, "broke" the Big Bang model of cosmology.

The claim went viral, but as with many things on the internet, it's simply not true.

Now, there's more research to back up the Big Bang. Recently, researchers took a more careful look at the data and determined that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

Read the full

[oldbadger]

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

That would be a bit early, since the astronomers and physicists reckon that it took 2-300 million years for quarks to transform in to protons and thence in to hydrogen atoms......is that right? But let's not take too much notice of any journalists who write click-bait headlines for their junky stories, eh?

What theory will materialists go to next?

The ones that they discover can fit with the early universe, I expect. We will undoubtedly have a much more clear view in 50 years than now....yes?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

What? You mean the God that created this universe with countless billions of galaxies and each containing thousand of billions of suns but who then created mankind on this tiny planet to look like him.....a male, and who let men nail him to a cross 'because they've been bad and must be forgiven'.....????
That God ??
You think that this telescope can show that?

OK......whatever........

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #22]

That would be a bit early, since the astronomers and physicists reckon that it took 2-300 million years for quarks to transform in to protons and thence in to hydrogen atoms......is that right?

Not exactly. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation suggests that it was only about 380,000 years from the big bang event to the transition between an opaque universe and a transparent one where light could more freely travel (the so-called "surface of last scattering"). At that point the universe was filled with hydrogen atoms at around 3000K temperature, which corresponds to a blackbody wavelength of just under 1 um which filled the universe. Fast forward some 13.7 billion years and this light has been red shifted into the microwave region (160 GHz) corresponding to a blackbody temperature of 2.7K. So the big bang hypothesis suggests hydrogen atoms were in large abundance "only" some 380,000 years after the initial event, not 2-300 million years.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #22]

That would be a bit early, since the astronomers and physicists reckon that it took 2-300 million years for quarks to transform in to protons and thence in to hydrogen atoms......is that right?

Not exactly. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation suggests that it was only about 380,000 years from the big bang event to the transition between an opaque universe and a transparent one where light could more freely travel (the so-called "surface of last scattering"). At that point the universe was filled with hydrogen atoms at around 3000K temperature, which corresponds to a blackbody wavelength of just under 1 um which filled the universe. Fast forward some 13.7 billion years and this light has been red shifted into the microwave region (160 GHz) corresponding to a blackbody temperature of 2.7K. So the big bang hypothesis suggests hydrogen atoms were in large abundance "only" some 380,000 years after the initial event, not 2-300 million years.

I cannot tell you that I know anything about what was happening in those 'early' times, I just watch programs like Professor Cox's 'Universe' and remember what I watched...that's all.

But he said that the Universe was without light until the (many) first 'blue giant' stars commenced nuclear fusion 'hydrogen-helium + energy' after about .2 to .3 billion years.

But do all the astronomers, physicists and mathematicians agree exactly about such timelines?

[Gracchus]

If the universe is expanding, then we are looking out, into the past, at a smaller universe. It's as though a liter of universe fits into a milliliter vial. Think about that, if you ever bother to think about the subject.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #24]

But he said that the Universe was without light until the (many) first 'blue giant' stars commenced nuclear fusion 'hydrogen-helium + energy' after about .2 to .3 billion years.

Light that the human eye can see covers just a tiny range (roughly 0.4 to 0.8 microns) of the full electromagnetic spectrum. So he may have been referring only to that wavelength region. The CMB radiation would have started out around 0.9 um ... just outside of human vision range, and redshifting created much longer wavelengths over time. Humans have never seen the CMB radiation with their naked eyes, but it is "light" just the same as the microwaves inside your microwave oven, or the radiowaves your FM radio picks up.

But do all the astronomers, physicists and mathematicians agree exactly about such timelines?

I think there is pretty good agreement among physicists as to when the "surface of last scattering" appeared (ie. some 380,000 years after the big bang), which was the origin of the CMB that pervades the universe today as microwaves. The current redshifted CMB wavelenth points to that, as does the theoretical model of the big bang hypothesis starting at t=0. When the first visible light appeared on large scales (eg. first star formation) may be less agreed upon.

[oldbadger]

Light that the human eye can see covers just a tiny range (roughly 0.4 to 0.8 microns) of the full electromagnetic spectrum. So he may have been referring only to that wavelength region. The CMB radiation would have started out around 0.9 um ... just outside of human vision range, and redshifting created much longer wavelengths over time. Humans have never seen the CMB radiation with their naked eyes, but it is "light" just the same as the microwaves inside your microwave oven, or the radiowaves your FM radio picks up.

I think there is pretty good agreement among physicists as to when the "surface of last scattering" appeared (ie. some 380,000 years after the big bang), which was the origin of the CMB that pervades the universe today as microwaves. The current redshifted CMB wavelenth points to that, as does the theoretical model of the big bang hypothesis starting at t=0. When the first visible light appeared on large scales (eg. first star formation) may be less agreed upon.

I think there is pretty good agreement among most physicists that the big bang is an accurate assessment of how the universe became. And the James Webb's infra-red view of all can only support and add to that.

That answers the Thread title 'Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?'.... don't you think?

[boatsnguitars]

The best thing about the OP is it shows exactly how the Religious mind works. To them, they presume any claim that a Theory needs to accommodate new data means it has failed and, so, means "God Did It."

In this case, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a poorly written and poorly-researched article. But they won't care. They'll repeat it to anyone who will listen, hoping to plant the seed of doubt so they can insert "God Did It." It's an age-old story. It started well before the OT. Ignorant, stupid men started claiming there were gods in the trees, then in the sky and they forced people to believe them. They were, and remain to be people who do this. I consider it to be evil.

Either way, these are not serious people.

[Clownboat]

The best thing about the OP is it shows exactly how the Religious mind works. To them, they presume any claim that a Theory needs to accommodate new data means it has failed and, so, means "God Did It."

In this case, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a poorly written and poorly-researched article. But they won't care. They'll repeat it to anyone who will listen, hoping to plant the seed of doubt so they can insert "God Did It." It's an age-old story. It started well before the OT. Ignorant, stupid men started claiming there were gods in the trees, then in the sky and they forced people to believe them. They were, and remain to be people who do this. I consider it to be evil.

Either way, these are not serious people.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. — Seneca.

These words appear to be as true today as they were a couple thousand years ago.