The universe could be nearly twice as old as previously estimated

[Gezzer]

Yet, scientists will not question big-bang theory, instead they will simple say, it must be older than we thought and adjust the theory to fit the evidence. Which is exactly what they are doing here.

Honestly, it doesn't jive at all. On one hand the universe appears much older than predicted. On the other hand, studies of our own Solar System actually make it appear much younger. There is not enough moon dust for example. There are too many volcanically active planets. There are rings around most planets. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are too thick and too strong.

I think it would be better if science would just stick to the observable facts when it comes to the Universe and stop guessing how it came into existence. Because that's all it is, guessing.

By the way, I brought this up months ago and I remember a mod telling me I was wrong about what JWST was observing. Yet here we are.

The thing to remember is science is a revisionary discipline.

We take everything we currently think we know, use it to extrapolate the things we don't or vaguely know by observing and formulating theories based on the data we collect from said observations. We then devise experiments that will either support or disprove any of the theories, and eventually we find a theory that the experiments support, to one extent or another. Rinse and repeat

The big problem is it's astounding how little we can say is certain. Even when we declare something a "law", because it's held up in all our experimentation for a very long time, it doesn't mean that new data won't totally upend a field and put that long held belief in the "law" in doubt.

Take Hawking radiation for example. It was long considered that black holes simply grew, with never allowing anything like matter or information to leave the event horizon. Then Stephen Hawking produced a formula that suggests that they actually leak a form a radiation and without the addition of new material will eventually evaporate.
More importantly if his radiation does exist and we can detect and/or measure it, we'll have a means to actually gleem an understanding of what's going on inside a black hole. But until we actually detect it it's just an unproven theory.

So who's to say that something we held to be unassailable isn't wrong, like our understanding of light and the redshift phenomenon. Maybe dark matter/energy interacts with light photons at a level that we can't detect and thereby skews long distance redshift measurements. Maybe there's more to our understanding of spacetime and it effects light photons on a level we've never considered. And so on. I'm fairly certain that in the next few years a number of theories will emerge trying to explain what they've detected.

So in a sense your right. The theory stage is simply guessing. Educated and informed guessing, but guessing nonetheless. That's how the scientific principal works. Observe, develop theories (guess), experiment to prove or disprove said theories, rinse and repeat. In fact our very current level of technology wouldn't exist without the process. Eventually, in a short or long (very) period, this current observation will be resolved. When though is anyone's guess.

 

[godrilla]

Nah, we all know (and you I bet) that the flat-earth cultists, orange-faced US politicians, Anti-vaxxers, everything-is-a-hoax imbeciles AND especially oil-companies' shills are the real Gods and should be believed.

The irony is that the ruling class once were flat earthers too, and the ice cream eating emperor without clothes is steering the ship who's primaried rival is also an anti vaxxer more than any right winger has ever seen, but we are told to focus on the flat earthers and orange faced politician; because trusting the science means you will not be labeled as such things as round earther oh wait . Take home message science is about asking questions no matter what you are labeled as flat-earther now or round earther from the past.

 

[Puiu]

Yet, scientists will not question big-bang theory, instead they will simple say, it must be older than we thought and adjust the theory to fit the evidence. Which is exactly what they are doing here.

Yes they do, which is why there are many MANY other theories.

But the big-bang is the most widely known because it fits best with what we can observe right now and what we understand about physics. it doesn't answer many important questions (like why, how and what was before), but that's besides the point.

 

[lazer]

So how did the universe come about? how did empty space come about?

 

[Sir Sparkles]

So the further we look into infinity the further we can see... seems logical enough.

 

[gamerk2]

I'll say it again: Variable Speed of Light Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Solves a surprising number of problems, like the necessity of Dark Matter, the observed Age of the Universe, and so on.

 

[m3tavision]

There are many in the cosmo-astrophysics world, that deduced the universe was always much older than prevailing consensus.

It is good that they are still researching and advancing our knowledge...!

 

[In Durbs]

Maybe there was no big bang at all. Is it possible that visible matter becomes dark matter, which in turn eventually becomes visible again in an endless cycle. This might help explain the expanding universe too and maybe the apparent age as we don't know what time scales are involved in this cycle.

 

[Peter Farkas]

What if the universe is infinite and there was never a beginning? just localized mini big-bangs everywhere all the time but space and matter would be infinite? Strange how desperatly we are clinking onto such dualistic views.

 

[lazer]

What if the universe is infinite and there was never a beginning? just localized mini big-bangs everywhere all the time but space and matter would be infinite? Strange how desperatly we are clinking onto such dualistic views.

remember the definition of a "theory" is an unproven suggestion that MIGHT solve the problem.

 

[ZedRM]

Webb is showing us things that are impossible.

Incorrect. JWST is showing us what it can see. If it can see it, it must be possible.

So which do you think is more likely? That we are correct and the Universe is misbehaving(BAD UNIVERSE, Naughty Universe!!) or the Universe is continuing on it's merry way and WE have made mistakes in our maths/theories?

It's a thinker...

instead of doing things like inventing Dark Matter / Energy

On this we agree. There are better answers for the unexplained than "dark" things..

 

[kiwigraeme]

From memory scientist claim the universe is 43 Billion light years wide - yet if only 14 billion years old - that would only get you 28 Billion light years . The difference is the universe is expanding as well - thinking about it 3 *14 is 42 - maybe just a coincidence

 

[lazer]

What if the universe is infinite and there was never a beginning? just localized mini big-bangs everywhere all the time but space and matter would be infinite? Strange how desperatly we are clinking onto such dualistic views.

and what caused matter to exist? and what caused it to explode?

 

[Peter Farkas]

and what caused matter to exist? and what caused it to explode?

brilliant questions.
I'd assume explosions are just due to density of mater. Cause of existence is a tough one though.

 

[FF222]

and what caused matter to exist? and what caused it to explode?

These things do not necessarily have a cause, as we understand that. We only know that causality is a thing *inside* our Universe, but we know nothing about what rules (if any) apply to whatever the Universe sprung from. Maybe causality is not a requirement for that.

 

[ZedRM]

and what caused matter to exist?

Are you kidding? Here's a hint: Where are WE in relation to the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy? Hmm?

and what caused it to explode?

That is more complicated, but there is an answer.