• Big Bang saved: Tired light gets tired again

    From =?UTF-8?Q?Pelle_Svansl=C3=B6s?=@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 22 20:51:04 2024
    When the James Webb Space Telescope started collecting data, it gave us
    an unprecedented view of the distant cosmos. Faint, redshifted galaxies
    seen by Hubble as mere smudges of light were revealed as objects of
    structure and form. And astronomers were faced with a bit of a problem.
    Those earliest galaxies seemed too developed and too large to have
    formed within the accepted timeline of the universe. This triggered a
    flurry of articles claiming boldly that JWST had disproven the big bang.
    Now a new article in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
    Society argues that the problem isn’t that galaxies are too developed,
    but rather that the universe is twice as old as we’ve thought. A
    whopping 26.7 billion years old to be exact. It’s a bold claim, but does
    the data really support it?

    The model proposed in the paper begins with something known as tired
    light. In the tired light model, light spontaneously loses energy over
    time. So as photons travel billions of light years through the cosmos,
    they become redshifted. Thus, the light of distant galaxies is
    redshifted not because of cosmic expansion, but because of the inherent reddening of light over time. The idea of tired light has been around
    since Edwin Hubble first observed cosmic expansion as a way to maintain
    the idea of a steady-state universe. It lost popularity as the evidence
    for cosmic expansion became clear, and regained some popularity as the
    Webb observations started rolling in.

    We’ve long known that tired light doesn’t work on its own, so this paper adds a new twist dealing with universal physical constants. Quantities
    such as the speed of light, the charge of an electron, or the
    gravitational constant seem to be built into the structure of the
    universe. They have the values they do because of the way the universe
    formed, and it’s generally assumed they don’t change over time. We have geological and astronomical observations that show physical constants
    haven’t changed for at least several few billion years.

    But this new paper argues that if you combine tired light and changing
    physical constants, you can get a universe that appears younger than it actually is. Basically, tired light gives you the cosmological redshift
    you observe, and gradually shifting physical constants means those
    mature distant galaxies aren’t just 100 million years old, they are
    billions of years old. By tweaking tired light and variable physical
    constants just so to match the data, you get a universe that is 26.7
    billion years old.

    Does the model work? Yes, but there are two problems with it. The first
    is that tweak theories are weak theories. While this model can be made
    to fit observational data, there’s no physical motivation for doing it.
    There are lots of models that can be tweaked to fit data, which is not
    the same as having a robust physical model. The author of the work
    argues that there could be some underlying mechanism that causes tired
    light and the physical constants to shift in just the right way, but
    there is still a lot of fudging in the model.

    The second problem is that JWST’s observations don’t rule out the
    standard 13.7 billion-year-old universe. The galaxies are more complex
    than some computer simulations have predicted, but that’s not surprising given the limits of large structure models. There are plenty of ways
    early galaxies could have evolved quickly that don’t require rewriting cosmology.

    But even without a strong physical motivation to create this model, the
    work is still useful. It’s the kind of paper that thinks outside the
    box, which is a great way to make sure we aren’t locked into old models
    just because they’ve worked so far. It isn’t likely that this new model overturns standard cosmology, but as long as ideas are testable and disprovable, as this model is, there is no harm in adding it to the pile
    of ideas.

    https://www.universetoday.com/162394/the-universe-could-be-twice-as-old-if-light-is-tired-and-physical-constants-change/

    Too bad. Light that gets tired of running around is a credible story.

    --
    "And off they went, from here to there,
    The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
    -- Traditional

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scall5@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 23 20:49:12 2024
    On 5/22/2024 12:51 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

    https://www.universetoday.com/162394/the-universe-could-be-twice-as-old-if-light-is-tired-and-physical-constants-change/

    Too bad. Light that gets tired of running around is a credible story.

    I enjoyed reading this. I also think we have way too little information,
    yet, to understand the origins of time and space.
    --
    ---------------
    Scall5

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)