Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings

12-12-2021 , 10:04 PM
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.
12-12-2021 , 10:49 PM
1.5 million mile orbit - wish they'd built two just in case.
12-17-2021 , 05:41 PM
Hope they have saved the blueprints!
12-18-2021 , 01:43 AM
Predicting the age of the "universe" will be massively adjusted based on its observations and our interpretation of them. Or perhaps this snippet that we experience will be understood as 13.7 billion, but that that is almost irrelevant to the whole shebang story, which is not the Big Bang, once knee-jerk proposed as a joke almost, then adopted way to simply. It's a million-to-one that it is even close right. Taking bets. Almost nothing in the standard picture will hold up. Evidence will come in that none of it is real; it's all virtual. One explanation: universe is a quantum computer, quantum flux is a virtual show to which our senses are attuned but in no way is real other than in mind. I'd take 100/1 on that, conventional line is probably more like a million-to-one.

12-18-2021 , 07:22 AM
I think most of what we think is right will be confirmed. But certainly some interesting stuff will emerge.
12-20-2021 , 07:49 AM
If the density of information increases the further back in time you look then the universe could virtually be infinitely old while finitely old only in terms of a strict time measurement.


PairTheBoard
12-20-2021 , 03:37 PM
Yes, what was the minimum entropy?
01-07-2022 , 06:27 PM
Subbed
01-13-2022 , 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52 Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings
Predicting the age of the "universe" will be massively adjusted based on its observations and our interpretation of them. Or perhaps this snippet that we experience will be understood as 13.7 billion, but that that is almost irrelevant to the whole shebang story, which is not the Big Bang, once knee-jerk proposed as a joke almost, then adopted way to simply. It's a million-to-one that it is even close right. Taking bets. Almost nothing in the standard picture will hold up. Evidence will come in that none of it is real; it's all virtual. One explanation: universe is a quantum computer, quantum flux is a virtual show to which our senses are attuned but in no way is real other than in mind. I'd take 100/1 on that, conventional line is probably more like a million-to-one.

Very unlikely that Webb will observe anything that revolutionary. It's only seeing near and mid infrared, while the strongest evidence for the Big Bang comes from other parts of the spectrum. We will get pretty pictures, and we will learn some new things. Maybe even things that force scientists to tweak the standard picture. But probably not much more than a tweak.

The Big Bang theory was adopted as a result of consistency with over a century of theoretical and observational evidence, and none contradicting it. At the time the name Big Bang was coined, a lot of that evidence was already in place for decades.
Yesterday , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimM Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings
Very unlikely that Webb will observe anything that revolutionary. It's only seeing near and mid infrared, while the strongest evidence for the Big Bang comes from other parts of the spectrum. We will get pretty pictures, and we will learn some new things. Maybe even things that force scientists to tweak the standard picture. But probably not much more than a tweak.

The Big Bang theory was adopted as a result of consistency with over a century of theoretical and observational evidence, and none contradicting it. At the time the name Big Bang was coined, a lot of that evidence was already in place for decades.
You are probably right, but you never know. The history of science is littered with situations where we thought we had it all figured out and all we had to do was hammer out the fine details. Late 19th-early 20th century physicists thought everything was worked out, except for a couple of small anomalies like figuring out the spectrum of black body radiation and figuring out why the planet Mercury’s orbit wasn’t quite what it was predicted to be. Well, of course further investigation into those “small” anomalies led to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, completely revolutionizing physics.

Today our cosmological model has everything worked out except on “small” anomaly — how fast is the universe actually expanding? When we look at the redshift of cosmologically distant bodies we get one answer. When we look at the features of the cosmological background radiation, we get a different answer. The two aren’t too far off, but the uncertainties in both measurements is small enough that it’s very unlikely that the two are actually the same and that the difference comes from measurement uncertainty.

Obviously the JW telescope may not (and likely will not) provide the answer to this anomaly, but this anomaly at least indicates that there is likely something missing from our current model. Whether the solution turns out to be a completely revolutionary idea or merely just a tweak to our current paradigm remains to be seen.

      
m