So. the Big Bang looks to not be a fact. Now what?

And now, if things aren't confusing enough already, it turns out that the data from the JWST wasn't even adjusted yet. So, all the discoveries that scientists made about distances of far away galaxies, and such, have to be thrown away and recalculated. The updated data is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

‘Bit of Panic’: Astronomers Forced to Rethink Early JWST Findings

 

This is a good lesson toward improving how we civilians consume science.

Tossing existing theory at the next new bit of data is usually a mistake.

Too much of media is desperate to report that all prior science on the topic has been shown to be false.

 

It was always a bit more balanced.

Sure in the 50's we had "Father Knows Best" (youtube here) and "Make Room for Daddy", but we also had William Bendix in "Life of Riley" (youtube) as a happy moron dad. iirc the Huxleys had a normal Mom/Dad/kids family where the dad was on the ball, of course that could only happen w/ a black family. Ironic considering that most U.S. blacks are born out of wedlock.

fwiw, we just saw another episode (almost last of season 1) and it was fun. Kind of a soap opera but still fun. My recommendation, try it, speed up thru the gay smooch scenes if u have to, and see if u enjoy it too.

 

Go way back; My Little Margie, I married Joan, Burns & Allen; women always played meddling busybodies who had no concept of unintended consequences.

 

Right, the standard plot device played on women's apparently emotional approach to life versus the man's logical and orderly view.

Concurrent was the evolution of advertising technology, back then the idea was "attack ads" where the commercial was intended to be obnoxious in order to me remembered better (fast, fast, FAST relief). We've come a long way on that. Now our ads are much more subtle an sophisticated.

 

Burns and Allen were comedy geniuses. They invented the whole lovable oaf genre as a throwaway in their standup routine.

 

In real life Gracie was the brains of the family. She was the comedy genius and George was the straight-man accompanist for the virtuoso one-liner. When Gracie died it was devastating for George and it took years for him to come back.

 

Maybe, but I don't believe that can be deduced by watching the roles they played or measuring the life effect of losing one's wife.

 

The straight man is the soul of a comedy team. I am not surprised that George Burns truly loved his wife

 

There can be no evidence since it disappeared 14 billion years ago and we weren't there to experience it.

 

It's not that easy. Our universe is testimony to what happened.

Information is certainly not complete.

But, most physicists agree that there is enough data to support the theory of an early rapid expansion (the big bang). That expansion can be detected in a few entirely different ways that agree with that theory.

Also, the theory of an original singularity is believed to be inconsistent with what is seen today. "Singularity" has a specific definition. So, I would say that there was something, but there isn't consensus among physicists on exactly what. It's tempting to just extrapolate back in time, and notice the universe getting smaller and smaller until it is of size zero. But, it doesn't work that way.

 

There may yet be a way to rule out the Big Bang once and for all, or not.

If we can detect a Cosmic Graviton Background (CGB) then the Big Bang didn't happen.

The technology to confirm this is not available yet, but it does give interested parties a goal to work towards, so it may be possible at some future date to test this.

Sources:
Scientists Say Stuff Might Have Been Happening Before the Big Bang (msn.com)

Can cosmic inflation be ruled out? | University of Cambridge

 

I should also like to note that a CGB would also prove the existence of the graviton, which would get two birds at once.

 

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Surely one would need a convincing argument for gravitons before one started making claims about CGB detection.

It would be great to see progress on that.

Again, EVERY scientist would dearly love to show that this universe just doesn't work the way we thought it does. This is one factor in making the whole idea of scientists toadying to existing models so ludicrous.

Here, we have numerous serious theoretical physicists putting their life's work into breaking the Big Bang cosmology - even if only in some small way!

Physicists spend $4.75 BILLIOLN dollars on the particle collider at Cern with the hopes of breaking the models of particle physics. How disappointed they were when it did little more than confirm current knowledge.

Will the big bang idea be defeated in the face of the onslaught of physicists? Maybe, but the model has show serious strength.

 

Scientists have many ideas of how the universe might work, but to find out how it does work, they have to invent something new to look at nature with. Each time they do it they fine-tune and adjust the known properties of the universe. It supports or rules out different papers that have been written up over the years, and it helps us fill the holes in our models.

As for why we do it, that's philosophical, but we all want to know the answers to what is real or not. And that justifies the expense.

 

I agree that science is a somewhat iterative process.

There are constraints. Whatever new ideas are found do have to support a universe as we know it today.