Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

[Steve]

And I'm asking what those problems are that we found?

I'm being told there are none.

You might try reading back through the thread to find the discussion of said problems. Discussions in which you were an active participant. Discussions in which you will find no one claiming that problems in current cosmology do not exist.

 

[Mike Helland]

In no sense is that what JWST has found. I've explained to you before how small these high redshift galaxies are but you seem to come back to this.

According to this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.16039.pdf

850.2's stellar mass is 0.18 × 10¹¹.

So... 1.8 × 10¹⁰.

850.1's stellar mass is 5.5 × 10¹¹.

So, at the same redshift, there's a smaller, but easy to see galaxy, as well as a larger and super-solar metal, but virtually hidden galaxy.
.
Their z is 4.26, lookback time of 12 billion years, so 87% of the way back to the big bang.

The Milky Way, is estimated to be 2.06 × 10¹¹.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00048

So, a galaxy at z=0, which 12 billion years later, is in between those two galaxies.

So at z = 4, it's pretty obvious that there is no correlation between metallicity and distance, or mass and distance. Higher or lower metallicity than solar and higher or lower mass than the Milky Way is possible.

If we extrapolate that out to z > 10, the first galaxies we notice at that range will be smaller and less dusty than the general population there.

Take GNz-11 for example, which is extremely luminous for it's redshift. It has a mass of 10^9 solar masses, or about the size of the SMC dwarf galaxy in the local universe. About 500 times lower mass than the Milky Way. In no sense is this a view of a mature universe.

Well, 200. It seems like from z=0 to z=11 a difference of 200x is quite unremarkable.

It also works out differently in different models.

And if you read the papers on it's Nitrogen abundance you will also know it's metal poor in Oxygen and Carbon.

This galaxy is even farther:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09908

JADES: Carbon enrichment 350 Myr after the Big Bang in a gas-rich galaxy

 

[hecd2]

Brain fart.

 

[Mike Helland]

These objects are believed to be small, because they are also believed to be so far away that they were really close when their light was emitted.

We should see angular sizes decreasing with distance, and then increasing after z=1.6. We don't see that. So obviously, these are actually just tiny galaxies.

According to my model, their sizes are being underestimated by falsely assuming the angular diameter turnaround. Further, my luminosity distance function exceeds LCDM's at z > 7.

I'm not sure by exactly how much, because I'm not sure what Hubble's constant they are using to predict luminosity distance.

I'm guessing they just use 70 km/s/Mpc?

 

[theprestige]

These objects are believed to be small, because they are also believed to be so far away that they were really close when their light was emitted.

We should see angular sizes decreasing with distance, and then increasing after z=1.6. We don't see that. So obviously, these are actually just tiny galaxies.

According to my model, their sizes are being underestimated by falsely assuming the angular diameter turnaround. Further, my luminosity distance function exceeds LCDM's at z > 7.

I'm not sure by exactly how much, because I'm not sure what Hubble's constant they are using to predict luminosity distance.

I'm guessing they just use 70 km/s/Mpc?

One, you don't have a model.

Two, the most parsimonious explanation is that our galaxy formation models, which we know are weak and probably wrong, are wrong.

 

[Mike Helland]

One, you don't have a model.

Here's the luminosity distance (because mass and luminosity are related) of my model (black) vs LCDM H₀=67.5 (green)



Here it is vs LCDM H₀=73:

Two, the most parsimonious explanation is that our galaxy formation models, which we know are weak and probably wrong, are wrong.

Wrong how though?

I'm not sure how the galaxy formation models have a ton to do with it. LCDM makes predictions about the angular size*. For the data to fit this model, actual galaxy sizes can only be so big, otherwise the model is falsified.

There is no problem simulating these galaxy sizes. That's not the problem.

*eta, given a fixed size and a distance

 

[erwinl]

And I'm asking what those problems are that we found?

I'm being told there are none.

Maybe it would be wise to have a look at the people you have on ignore and prune that list?
That way you could see more explanations, after you posed a question, or declaration.

 

[Mike Helland]

Maybe it would be wise to have a look at the people you have on ignore and prune that list?
That way you could see more explanations, after you posed a question, or declaration.

If your car has a dead battery, new tires aren't the way to go.

ETA: That is to say, some have claimed here that galaxy formation theories are why observations don't fit the model. What observations don't fit the model, and why would a better theory of galaxy formation help?

 

[Mike Helland]

You might try reading back through the thread to find the discussion of said problems. Discussions in which you were an active participant. Discussions in which you will find no one claiming that problems in current cosmology do not exist.

Sure. You will find some admitting the Hubble tension is problem, always with the obligatory disclaimer that it's not a big deal.

First of all, that has nothing to do with galaxy formation.

Secondly, you will be told it's some type of problem with our measurements of local, nearby galaxies.

Do you believe that? Do you know what that means?

Do you have the image in mind that there is some small sliver at data for "nearby" galaxies, that doesn't match up with our model?

Seriously, think about it. What does the problem look like in your head?

This is the part of the universe that the "local" data actually covers:

Does that reflect what you were imagining?

The data in that range tells us the universe is currently expanding at 73 km/s/Mpc, and the universe is 12.8 billion years old.

This is considered wrong. The data says this is what it is. There are no cosmologists that consider this to be possible.

It has to be closer to 67.5 km/s/Mpc, and the universe has to be 13.8 billion years old. Even when discussing galaxies that clearly fall in the range of the "local" data, where 67.5 is an objectively poor fit to the data... that's the value used.

It is in no way conceivable in their minds that light from 370,000 years after the big bang cannot be telling us anything but the right answer (unless the value has changed sometime between 13.75 billion years ago and 11 billion years ago).

Part of this is that they've measured the ages of stars to be older than 12.8 billion years. Isn't it conceivable that our ability to measure the age of a star isn't as precise or accurate as we thought? Is that such an exact science, never having actually visited more than one star, that our belief in the beginning of reality as we know must hinge strictly on those measurements?

Some big bang skeptics are fond of pointing at the Methuselah star as evidence against the big bang. Because it's apparently the oldest star in our galaxy. Because it's so metal poor.

Well. This is how stupid I am. That doesn't make sense.

Why would the oldest star in the galaxy have the least amount of metal in it? If it's been burning for so long... wouldn't it have a ton of metal?

What if it's one of the youngest stars?

Again, I'm a moron. It probably has to do with where it's hiding it's metal weight, and us being certain about that too.

I just think it's a bit preposterous that "oh, the data! the evidence!" and where the rubber actually meets the road, the SNe data is simply pushed aside in favor of readings of tea leaves at the so called surface of last scattering.

And this really has zero connection to the theory of galaxy formation through mergers.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Secondly, you will be told [the Hubble tension is] some type of problem with our measurements of local, nearby galaxies.

Do you believe that? Do you know what that means?

Do you have the image in mind that there is some small sliver at data for "nearby" galaxies, that doesn't match up with our model?

Seriously, think about it. What does the problem look like in your head?

This is the part of the universe that the "local" data actually covers:

[qimg]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikehelland/hubbles-law/master/img/tz-local.png[/qimg]

Does that reflect what you were imagining?

Mike Helland's spoiler presents a picture that's linear in the lookback time (horizontal axis, labelled at bottom). That choice of presentation expands the yellow-shaded "Local" area, which accounts for only a tiny fraction of the observable universe.

The yellow-shaded area stops near a redshift of z=2, when the scale factor was 1/3 its present value. The horizontal scale extends past a redshift of z=20, when the scale factor was 1/21 its present value. That means sources at z=20 are now 7 times as far away from us as sources at z=2. That's a linear distance. To compare volumes, we have to cube the 7. Upon doing so, we find that the yellow-shaded area accounts for approximately (1/7)³ = 1/343 of the total volume of the universe out to z=20.

When we observe the cosmic microwave background, we are seeing radiation at a redshift of roughly z=1100, when the scale factor was less than one thousandth of its current value, hence less than 1/300 of its value at z=2. Cubing that, we find that the CMB gives us information about a volume that is more than 27 million times the size of the universe out to z=2.

So the white portion of the picture, between the yellow and pink shading, represents a part of the universe that is more than 27 million times as large as the part represented by the yellow-shaded area.

That may help readers to understand why the yellow-shaded area is called "Local".

I don't understand the vertical axis of Mike Helland's picture, which extends from 0 to something like 1.8 of some unspecified units. I suspect the vertical axis of Mike Helland's picture is completely meaningless, but I am willing to be enlightened.

 

[Mike Helland]

Mike Helland's spoiler presents a picture that's linear in the lookback time (horizontal axis, labelled at bottom). That choice of presentation expands the yellow-shaded "Local" area, which accounts for only a tiny fraction of the observable universe.

It clearly accounts for a large fraction of the observable universe.

If time is invariant, which FLRW says it is, and the universe really began around 13.8 billion years ago, which ya'll seem to think it did, then that's what's up.

If you are holding on to some kind of wild card, where that time-line is an illusion, then big bang cosmology is some kind of mirage. Is that where you want to go?

The yellow-shaded area stops near a redshift of z=2, when the scale factor was 1/3 its present value. The horizontal scale extends past a redshift of z=20, when the scale factor was 1/21 its present value. That means sources at z=20 are now 7 times as far away from us as sources at z=2. That's a linear distance. To compare volumes, we have to cube the 7. Upon doing so, we find that the yellow-shaded area accounts for approximately (1/7)³ = 1/343 of the total volume of the universe out to z=20.

When we observe the cosmic microwave background, we are seeing radiation at a redshift of roughly z=1100, when the scale factor was less than one thousandth of its current value, hence less than 1/300 of its value at z=2. Cubing that, we find that the CMB gives us information about a volume that is more than 27 million times the size of the universe out to z=2.

So the white portion of the picture, between the yellow and pink shading, represents a part of the universe that is more than 27 million times as large as the part represented by the yellow-shaded area.

That may help readers to understand why the yellow-shaded area is called "Local".

I don't understand the vertical axis of Mike Helland's picture, which extends from 0 to something like 1.8 of some unspecified units. I suspect the vertical axis of Mike Helland's picture is completely meaningless, but I am willing to be enlightened.

Your definition of the observable universe counts regions of spacetime that are currently unobservable as observable.

This version of the graphic has some data points for metallicity, which is why the horizontal units are what they are.

This paper says there was a pristine hydrogen cloud at z=4.4:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05098

It seems to me, if that collapsed into a star, the star would look like the so-called Methuselah star. Were that to happen, it would be the youngest star in that galaxy. Not the oldest.

 

[Steve]

(Boring rant snipped)

So contrary to your claim that no one claims there are problems, you actually recognize that some problems have been discussed in this very thread. Perhaps just not the problems that you wish to discuss.

As to your claim that you are a moron, that could be taken to a different thread, if you wish.

 

[Mike Helland]

So contrary to your claim that no one claims there are problems, you actually recognize that some problems have been discussed in this very thread. Perhaps just not the problems that you wish to discuss.

As to your claim that you are a moron, that could be taken to a different thread, if you wish.

If you broaden the scope of problems to the Hubble tension, sure.

How is that connected to "blame it on the theory of galaxy formation"?

erwinl, I tried.

 

[Mike Helland]

The yellow-shaded area stops near a redshift of z=2, when the scale factor was 1/3 its present value. The horizontal scale extends past a redshift of z=20, when the scale factor was 1/21 its present value. That means sources at z=20 are now 7 times as far away from us as sources at z=2. That's a linear distance. To compare volumes, we have to cube the 7. Upon doing so, we find that the yellow-shaded area accounts for approximately (1/7)³ = 1/343 of the total volume of the universe out to z=20.

You're using the comoving volume of the universe, as it is today.

Light emitted from beyond z>1 (eta, ~1.4) today will never reach us.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ppeared-from-our-perspective/?sh=77fa84315100

This means that even if we left today, in a spaceship that moved arbitrarily close to that ultimate speed limit, we could never reach those galaxies. It means that the light we generate today can never reach them, and the light that they generate today can never reach us. Under that line of thinking:

* 96.7% of the galaxies that we can observe today are already gone.
* 98.6% of the galaxies that we will ever observe are already gone.
* And only, roughly, 66 billion galaxies are still reachable by us today.

In other words, in the future, we will have a total of 4.7 trillion galaxies to view. And 4.634 trillion of them are already forever unreachable, even at the speed of light.​

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It clearly accounts for a large fraction of the observable universe.

....snip....

Your definition of the observable universe counts regions of spacetime that are currently unobservable as observable.

We can add "observable universe" to our ever-increasing list of things Mike Helland does not understand.

With my highlighting, but with bolding and italics as in the original:

The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time ; the electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion....

The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other information from an object, or whether there is anything to be detected....

According to calculations, the current comoving distance to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light-years). The comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light-years).... The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years ....

As stated within that quotation, the visible universe is a little bit smaller than the observable universe.

You're using the comoving volume of the universe, as it is today.

In other words, I correctly calculated the volume of the observable universe as it is today.

But Mike Helland is so confused about this that he thinks the observable universe has something to do with the part of the universe containing light sources whose light, if emitted today , could reach us.

Not so. The observable universe is the part of the universe containing light sources whose light, if emitted sufficiently long ago , could in principle reach us today.

The observable universe therefore extends all the way back to recombination, whose light we do indeed observe today in the form of the cosmic background radiation.

Light emitted from beyond z>1 (eta, ~1.4) today will never reach us.

If Mike Helland wishes to limit himself to light emitted today that will reach him, then (barring extraordinarily unlikely miracles of medical science) his observations of the universe are limited to a radius of less than 100 light years.

In summary: Mike Helland's belief that "local" includes most of the observable universe is simply false, based upon nothing more than his own personal confusion. He tried to convince us to share his confusion. To do so, he posted an exceedingly misleading picture in which the part he labels "Local" covers more than half the picture, when in reality the part of the universe we call "local" is less than 1/27000000 of the observable universe.

 

[Mike Helland]

In other words, I correctly calculated the volume of the observable universe as it is today.

But Mike Helland is so confused about this that he thinks the observable universe has something to do with the part of the universe containing light sources whose light, if emitted today , could reach us.

Not so. The observable universe is the part of the universe containing light sources whose light, if emitted sufficiently long ago , could in principle reach us today.

If we're talking about light emitted long ago, and how things looked long ago, why are you using the volume today?

 

[Mike Helland]

To do so, he posted an exceedingly misleading picture in which the part he labels "Local" covers more than half the picture, when in reality the part of the universe we call "local" is less than 1/27000000 of the observable universe.

The range of the SNe Type Ia data (z=2.26) goes out to a comoving distance of 18 billion light years.

The farthest observable galaxy (z≈13) has a comoving distance of 32 billion light years.

That's the comoving distance though. The light didn't travel that far And we are viewing them as they were when they were much closer (both from behind the angular diameter turnaround).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If we're talking about light emitted long ago, and how things looked long ago, why are you using the volume today?

Because the ****** *********** to whom I was responding was trying to fool people into thinking the part of today's universe that cosmologists refer to as "local" accounts for a large fraction of the observable universe.

The ****** *********** to whom I was responding was full of ****.

That ****** *********** might not even realize that comparing the current or relatively current size of the part we call "local" to the long-ago size of the rest of the universe, when all of the universe was far more compressed than today, is pretty much a textbook example of dishonest equivocation.

 

[Mike Helland]

trying to fool people into thinking the part of today's universe that cosmologists refer to as "local" accounts for a large fraction of the observable universe.

I don't care for the accusations, especially after your spectacular misdirect.

You brought up the observable universe. You invoked volume, for no particular reason (or should I say no good reason).

The light travel time distance for the farthest galaxy in the SNe data is almost 10.6 billion light years out of a possible 13.75 billion light years.

If you want to use comoving distance, it's 18 billion light years. You can compare that to the radius of the observable universe, 46 billion light years, if you'd like. If that helps you cope.

But that's just how far away things are now, not how far their light traveled or the distance the light was emitted from.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As I wrote above, Mike Helland just flat out does not understand what cosmologists mean by the "observable universe".

The range of the SNe Type Ia data (z=2.26) goes out to a comoving distance of 18 billion light years.

The farthest observable galaxy (z≈13) has a comoving distance of 32 billion light years.

No. The farthest galaxies as yet observed are at redshifts on the order of z≈13. As I have explained and cited and quoted, however, the observable universe is defined as the part of the universe that could ever be observed even in principle, not the much smaller part of the universe containing galaxies that have been observed so far.

That's the comoving distance though. The light didn't travel that far And we are viewing them as they were when they were much closer (both from behind the angular diameter turnaround).

True but irrelevant.

Mike Helland wanted us to believe the part of the universe that cosmologists refer to as "local" (the yellow-shaded part of his picture) accounts for a large fraction of the universe stretching all the way back past z=20 (the largest redshift labelled as such in his picture) and continuing to the z=1100 redshift of recombination (the pink-shaded part of his picture).

To refute Mike Helland's profoundly unserious and ignorant argument, I compared the volume of the universe corresponding to redshifts he shaded in yellow and labelled as "local" to the part of the universe corresponding to redshifts he shaded in white.

In other words, I correctly compared the volume of the observable universe to the volume of the so-called local universe.

You brought up the observable universe. You invoked volume, for no particular reason (or should I say no good reason).

Some folks might think a pseudoscientist's persistent repetition of an ignorant, misleading, and quite possibly dishonest argument counts as a good reason to provide correct calculations that refute the argument.

But I can understand why Mike Helland isn't one of those folks.

But that's just how far away things are now, not how far their light traveled or the distance the light was emitted from.

Yes. It would be stunningly dishonest to compare the relatively recent volume of the "local" universe to the long-ago volume of the observable universe at recombination, when the scale factor at recombination was a tiny fraction of what it was when light we observe today was emitted from within the so-called local universe.

Mike Helland is complaining that I am not so stunningly dishonest as to do that.