Big Bang Trouble: Old, Distant Galaxies Are Huge Monsters

Big Bang theory was predicting the most ancient galaxies to be tiny… But the new space telescope can see them, and some are huge…  

The Big Bang theory in its modern incarnation, LCDM, Lambda Cold Dark Matter, consists of a chain of nested hypotheses with attending “tooth fairies” to make it work [1]. Now there is precision cosmology, and many results, say of the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) fit the data exquisitely… Maybe all too well: That reminds me of Ptolemaic astronomy, when all was perfect (astronomer and count Tycho found the cheating only 15 centuries later…) I am of the opinion that there is a possible different mechanism to produce CBR (so not just redshift from expansion but also from a tired light effect coming from cosmically sized Quantum Interactions; Zwicky, the discoverer of Dark Matter also suggested “tired light”, that’s generally considered to be wrong, but Zwicky suggested no mechanism; SQPR does). 

Some of these hypotheses of the Big Bang are quite out of this world. For example, the Big Bang, even without LCDM, has to grow space at one hundred billion trillion times the speed of light (10^23 c). 

The LCDM model makes very specific predictions. So early galaxies are supposed to be small and disorganized… However, in truth… Instead we are seeing instead large, well-organized galaxies, which should not be there so early after the BB. The haggard majority of astronomers has to admit that some important ingredient in LCDM is missing, or something is wrong entirely. I propose the latter, on a truly cosmic scale.

“Lambda” comes from Einstein. It was a cheat factor Einstein introduced to explain that the universe was static: it neither collapsed nor expanded. However, within a few years the universe was found to be expanding. Einstein called Lambda “it’s biggest mistake”… because otherwise he would have “predicted” the expansion (silly boy). So “Lambda” was viewed with horror and consternation, as the poster boy of ad hoc hypotheses, for seventy years, until around 2000 CE when it was found, by studying super novas as distant candles, that the cosmic expansion accelerated, so “Lambda” had to be plugged back into the General Relativity equation, which now basically reads as follows: 

Curvature + Lambda = Energy-Momentum  

So then Eistein’s biggest error became another Einstein insight…. (My view of Einstein’s biggest error is that it is much  bigger than that: his assumption of point-like “particles”… which is increasingly disproven by the most recent experiment, not just my opinion. The field is moving so fast, I didn’t write about these yet.)

The Dark Matter problem is that gravity as the inverse square law doesn’t seem to work in view of the apparent repartition of matter around galaxies and galactic clusters

The inverse square law for gravitation was proposed in 1645 by the French astronomer Ismaël Boulliau (aka Bullialdus). The law was demonstrate by Newton when he deduced from it Kepler’s laws. The 1/dd behavior of gravity is also the first approximation of General Relativity, GR, the modern (1916) theory of gravitation of Einstein and his colleagues (Hilbert, Besso, etc.). So if 1/dd falls, so does GR.

However, confronted to this Dark Matter problem all over, some then tried the oldest and most basic method of science: if it doesn’t fit, you must that quit! When confronted with a mystery, one tends to go to the simplest explanation. In the case of “Dark Matter” that would be neutrinos or a similar new type of particle, say from supersymmetry, interacting very little with ordinary matter. But particle physicists found no such particles. They are still searching.

Periodically some scientists, typically Italian, located below Gran Sasso (the great stone.), proclaim they have solved the problem… But they are found to be wrong. Gran Sasso experiments should be funded, but Italian science has a funding crisis, so is prone to enthusiastic claims to justify said funding… Most recently Italians claim they found (again) all the Dark Matter, and it was all ions, and there were too many of them… (I would be naturally very disappointed if they were right…)

Neglecting this Italian distraction, the next logical possibility is to modify gravity to fit the apparent rotation curves of galaxies. This sort of method is curve fitting, it has a glorious past: Kepler did it…within a generation or so Kepler laws were (more or less) deducted from the inverse square law and the basic laws of mechanics by Newton and company. So modifying gravity should not be taken lightly. Our GPS works with GR…

Modifying gravity ad hoc is called MOND: MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.  A first problem here is that Ismael Boulliau (Bullialdus) has a little reasoning for the 1/dd law, namely that would be the natural decrease over a distance d, of the density of particles. Boulliau made the explicit analogy of graviation with light (if it consisted of particles). Some may object that Boulliau’s work is rather trivial. Maybe, but it’s way better than no fundamental reason at all, as in MOND.

Moreover, Bouillau may well have been right, in light of Planck’s Quantum hypothesis, which makes light into particles (or at least packets of energy, an idea reinforced by Einstein in 1905)… So Bouillau contradicts MOND with a reason all the better, that it is very simple…

If there are no Dark Matter particles, and modifying gravity doesn’t work the next and only step is to modify Quantum Physics, and that is what Sub Quantum Physical Reality (SQPR) does. It turns out that SQPR changes cosmology on a vast scale. No more “tooth fairies” and a cascade of ad hoc hypotheses… Patrice Ayme The universe is lyrical in the most gigantic way:

Distant galaxies as seen by the JWST in 2022…

[1] As astrophysicist and cosmologist Stacy McGaugh, a MOND partisan, puts it: “Bear in mind that there are many forms of feedback. That one word [feedback] upon which our entire cosmology has become dependent is not a single auxiliary hypothesis. It is more like a Russian nesting doll of multiple tooth fairies, one inside another. Imagining that these different, complicated effects must necessarily add up to just the right outcome is dangerous: anything we get wrong we can just blame on some unknown imperfection in the feedback prescription. .. This is like putting a bandage on an amputation and pretending like the treatment is complete.

The universe is weirder than we know, and perhaps weirder than we can know. This provides boundless opportunity for self-delusion.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Big Bang Trouble: Old, Distant Galaxies Are Huge Monsters”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    I wish I really understood your posts on this subject but they are beyond me; unfortunately!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmmm…. Nice to hear from you Paul. I try to make my essays multilevel, so as to suggest clarifications on detailed points. Anyway, I am going to post a sort of second part… the first portion of which is more understandable…

      Liked by 2 people

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: