Big Bang Bust(ed)?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else

A group of researchers questions the intensity of the cosmic background radiation

www.marca.com

I think this is the original article:

Scholars Portal

journals.scholarsportal.info

More research needed?

 

[Trebuchet]

Betteridge's Law probably applies. But I'll read the article now.

 

[alfaniner]

The show is over -- they've been using that in the theme song since Day 1 and ain't gonna change it now!

 

[rjh01]

The answer to the question is no.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

An un-paywalled version of the article is online here.

My impression, based upon a quick skim of the article, is that its results do not bring the idea of a Big Bang into question. The article does suggest that "it may become necessary to consider cosmological models other than the flat-ΛCDM paradigm." The Big Bang is not synonymous with "the flat-ΛCDM paradigm", but it appears one of the lifestyle reporters at the sports news site marca.com doesn't know that.

My impression of the article is that it's mostly about how theories of early galaxy formation imply consequences for the CMB. In particular, the article argues for the "monolithic" scenario with "downsizing" over the "hierarchical" scenario, and promotes the "Integrated Galaxy-wide Initial Mass Function (IGIMF) theory".

The "flat-ΛCDM paradigm" is based upon a family of flat-ΛCDM models, which are themselves exact solutions of the Einstein field equations. To simplify the mathematics enough to make exact solutions possible, those models assume the universe has and has always had perfect homogeneity and isotropy. Everyone knows those assumptions are only approximately true. The extent to which those assumptions aren't completely true is an interesting and important research question. I think the article discussed in this thread is trying to address that question.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ah yes. Slight, unexplained as yet, anomaly overturns years of developed science.

Needs more

 

[shemp]

Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else

A group of researchers questions the intensity of the cosmic background radiation

www.marca.com

I think this is the original article:

Scholars Portal

journals.scholarsportal.info

More research needed?

One can always rely on the scientific conclusions of cheesy sports news aggregators.

 

[alfaniner]

Well, it was just a theory, anyway.

 

[Puppycow]

I saw a short YouTube video that explains this the other day. If anyone's interested, here it is.


It does not overturn all the evidence for the Big Bang, such as the fact that the universe is expanding and galaxies that are farther away from us are moving away from us faster as a function of their distance. It does, however, raise some interesting questions about what exactly the CMB actually is. As with all such new papers, I'll wait to see what the responses are from other cosmologists.

After watching that video (or before) you might also want to see this article by Ethan Siegal:

JWST's early galaxies didn't break the Universe. They revealed it.

Originally, the abundance of bright, early galaxies shocked astronomers. After 3 years of JWST, we now know what's really going on.

bigthink.com

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That's funny...” —Isaac Asimov