Did James Webb cast serious doubt on the Big Bang?

[DavidCummings]

TL;DR Summary

Have recent images of the very early universe coming from the James Webb Space Telescope cast any doubt on the theory that our universe began with a Big Bang?

If you read articles like The James Webb Space Telescope prompts a rethink of how galaxies form you see that recent images of early galaxies have thrown some doubt on theories of how galaxies have formed and when they started forming.

But if you read about the JWST in the popular media -- and especially in social media -- you find all kinds of claims that "observations from the JWST have overturned the Big Bang theory".

Is there anything -- in any of the recent data from JWST -- that suggests in any way that our current observable universe did NOT begin as a very small region of highly condensed energy, and has NOT been expanding outward ever since? I ask this question already believing that the answer is that JWST has not done anything remotely like "overturning the Big Bang", but I would like to get reactions here to such contentions that have become popular of late.

 

[Drakkith]

I haven't seen the results being talked about, but I seriously doubt they 'overturn the big bang'. I suspect it's just that some numbers here don't match up with some numbers over there and people are blowing it all out of proportion to get clicks and views.

 

[PeterDonis]

Is there anything -- in any of the recent data from JWST -- that suggests in any way that our current observable universe did NOT begin as a very small region of highly condensed energy, and has NOT been expanding outward ever since?

No. All these new results do is what the title of the article you linked to says: make astronomers rethink our ideas about how galaxies form. But we didn't know very much about how galaxies form to begin with, so it's not at all surprising that new observations are making astronomers rethink things.

We do, however, have good evidence for the overall hot big bang model that you describe, which does not depend at all on our very sketchy understanding of how galaxies form.

 

[PeroK]

But if you read about the JWST in the popular media -- and especially in social media -- you find all kinds of claims that "observations from the JWST have overturned the Big Bang theory".

If you read the popular science media, then the laws of physics get rewritten or turned upside down every few months! For example, the first law of thermodynamics was rewritten earlier this year:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43048519/first-law-of-thermodynamics-rewritten-physics/

 

[topsquark]

If you read the popular science media, then the laws of physics get rewritten or turned upside down every few months! For example, the first law of thermodynamics was rewritten earlier this year:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43048519/first-law-of-thermodynamics-rewritten-physics/

Oh, heck. That's nothing. I'm overturning the Laws of Trigonometry as we speak!

(I would be getting this problem if it weren't 2 in the morning!)

-Dan

 

[pinball1970]

TL;DR Summary: Have recent images of the very early universe coming from the James Webb Space Telescope cast any doubt on the theory that our universe began with a Big Bang?

I ask this question already believing that the answer is that JWST has not done anything remotely like "overturning the Big Bang

Social media has a tonne of noise masking any actual science, I am experienced enough now to cut to the interesting and meaningful stuff, about 2 or 3 YouTube sites. The media/press tend to sensationalize things without actually making things up, the Guardian can be ok sometimes.

For Webb there is the official NASA site, if BB is overturned I think it will be posted there!

 

[phinds]

Have recent images of the very early universe coming from the James Webb Space Telescope cast any doubt on the theory that our universe began with a Big Bang?

Just in case there is any confusion on your part, our universe did NOT start with an explosion in space, which is what a lot of pop sci writers mean or imply when they use the term Big Bang.

The "Big Bang Theory" is a very well verified theory (not down to every time-line detail) STARTING at the end of the "Inflation Era" (which is itself not an absolutely known-to-be-true concept), and the theory describes the evolution of the universe since then but does not posit any creation event since it starts after any such possible even occurred.

Also, I would add, it is possible that the universe is infinite in spatial extent and if it was then it has always been, and if so, then describing its evolution even as an expansion from a "small dense region" would not be correct.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

Also, I would add, it is possible that the universe is infinite in spatial extent and if it was then it has always been, and if so, then describing its evolution even as an expansion from a "small dense region" would not be correct.

It's true, but the original post didn't describe the evolution of the universe that way, but that of the observable universe, in which case it would be correct.

 

[phinds]

It's true, but the original post didn't describe the evolution of the universe that way, but that of the observable universe, in which case it would be correct.

Correct, but misleading because to people who don't know better that would seem to imply that the whole universe started that way.

 

[PeterDonis]

describing its evolution even as an expansion from a "small dense region" would not be correct.

But describing its evolution as starting from a very dense state would still be correct--the universe was very dense right after the Big Bang. And it has expanded by a huge factor, with a corresponding huge decrease in density. The fact that it is spatially infinite according to our best current model doesn't change that. The only part that might be questioned would be the "small region" part, and, as has already been pointed out, the OP used that word to refer to our observable universe, and for our observable universe it is correct.

 

[PeterDonis]

to people who don't know better that would seem to imply that the whole universe started that way.

Possibly, but if you question the "small dense region" description people who don't know better will think you are questioning the "dense" part as well, which would be wrong. It seems to me to be better to clarify that the "small region" part refers to our observable universe, while the "dense" part applies to the entire universe.

 

[ohwilleke]

TL;DR Summary: Have recent images of the very early universe coming from the James Webb Space Telescope cast any doubt on the theory that our universe began with a Big Bang?

If you read articles like The James Webb Space Telescope prompts a rethink of how galaxies form you see that recent images of early galaxies have thrown some doubt on theories of how galaxies have formed and when they started forming.

But if you read about the JWST in the popular media -- and especially in social media -- you find all kinds of claims that "observations from the JWST have overturned the Big Bang theory".

Is there anything -- in any of the recent data from JWST -- that suggests in any way that our current observable universe did NOT begin as a very small region of highly condensed energy, and has NOT been expanding outward ever since? I ask this question already believing that the answer is that JWST has not done anything remotely like "overturning the Big Bang", but I would like to get reactions here to such contentions that have become popular of late.

Between disproving the Big Bang Theory, which is does not, and slightly tweaking how we understanding galaxy formation, which it does, is a challenge to the existing paradigm in cosmology, sometimes known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology" which is also known as the LambdaCDM model, in which Lambda stands for the cosmological constant, and CDM stands for "Cold Dark Matter".

The JWST results, and in particular, its observations of very early after the Big Bang galaxies that are more developed than expected in the LambdaCDM Model, is one of multiple serious challenges to this paradigm.

The LambdaCDM model isn't all that specific. For example, it doesn't specify what precise "microphysics" properties cold dark matter particles must have, only that cold dark matter must have certain general and approximate properties (e.g. it must be "nearly" collisionless). But a range of observations, the most important of which are the cosmic background radiation measurements by Planck, fairly tightly constrain the parameter space of the six parameters of the core theory and of a few additional parameters of mild extensions of it, and the uncertainty in those measurements is also pretty well established.

LambdaCDM as fitted to these observed parameters puts reasonably specific constraints upon how common galaxies of particular kinds should be at specific periods of time from the Big Bang, and the observations of the JWST are in very strong tension with those predicted constraints.

 

[PeterDonis]

the observations of the JWST are in very strong tensions with those predicted constraints

How does the tension regarding the value of the Hubble constant play into this?

 

[ohwilleke]

How does the tension regarding the value of the Hubble constant play into this?

The tensions are almost completely independent. The Hubble constant tension is between CMB and measurements of the Hubble constant in the last 1-2 billion years. The tensions from galaxy formation aren't based upon recent times observations and are only indirectly related to the CMB through the LambdaCDM parameters that CMB fixes.

 

[KobiashiBooBoo]

It's amazing to try to comprehend this: a dense region of infinite space compared to post-inflation region of infinite space. If Webb finds that galaxies form much earlier than previously theorized, it just shows we have more work to do.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I think this is more a testament to the sensationalization of media. I get a feed that has been honed by my choices to almost entirely science, but I still skip over about two thirds of the articles simply because their headlines are so obviously hyperbole and puffery.

This is another example of an article that pretends such things as TBB are solved, fixed in stone and put to bed, as opposed to a very active area of research.

I'm wise to that. When they say "ooOOoohh! casts dOuBt on!", I say "Yeah. That's called science."