Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Cosmic Dawn - When the first stars were formed after the Big Bang!

  1. #1 The Cosmic Dawn - When the first stars were formed after the Big Bang! 
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    280
    A recent BBC article (1) offers some new insight into the beginning of star formation and the evolution of galaxies. Quoting from the article:

    "According to the new study, 250 to 350 million years after the Big Bang, the first stars emerged, bringing light to the cosmos. Critically, the new analysis also indicates that the first galaxies are bright enough and within the range where they can be seen by the James Webb Space Telescope - the successor to the venerable Hubble Space Telescope. Astronomers may then be able to witness this crucial moment in the evolution of the Universe directly."

    end quote

    These observations were first published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

    It will be very nice to have the Webb Telescope (2) deployed and functional, at long last, to both confirm such observations, and make many more.



    "Astronomers work out when the first stars shone"

    1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57515422


    "James Webb Space Telescope"

    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb_Telescope


    Last edited by Double Helix; June 24th, 2021 at 07:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,787
    Did the Big Bang actually happen?
    What about the North Pole analogy - you can't go north of it, only south.
    That would apply to time. Going back will only take you forward again.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Did the Big Bang actually happen?
    What about the North Pole analogy - you can't go north of it, only south.
    That would apply to time. Going back will only take you forward again.

    Hubble's Law appears to prove an expanding universe, and most experts in this will tell us that a Big Bang certainly did occur. The CMB provides additional support by very different means. But this is all conjecture based on puny human brains and their limited capacity.

    Of course you already knew this, but perhaps you are a naysayer of such grand observations, for whatever reason(s)? If so, you are certainly not alone.

    And you can only go south of the north pole if you stay on the planet. Off-planet, you can certainly go north of the north pole. Perhaps this saying predates the space age?!

    The basic aspect of time only moving forward, also derived by puny human brains, seems insurmountable.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...ave_background
    Last edited by Double Helix; June 30th, 2021 at 06:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,787
    The Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang.
    More likely there was a very brief period of faster than light expansion of space.
    Where imperfections occurred galaxies started to form in the unimaginable void.

    Why it should bother to expand like it has, I don't know.
    Why the universe bothers to exist, I don't know.
    Why should it be full of holes, I don't know.
    What shape is it, I don't know.
    Is it finite or infinite, I don't know.
    What is dark energy, I don't know.
    Does nature abhor a naked singularity, I don't know.

    You are right about our puny brains.
    But AI might one day give us more clues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang.

    Some might suggest that this is debatable based on its accepted definition for cosmology. From Oxford Languages : "Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics."

    So some feel it is a reasonably accurate definition of what happened way back when, rather than by the definition of the simple words used to define it.

    Technically, it was not a "bang", which is a "loud noise". How big it was (i.e. size) requires a comparative scale, but it must have been rather large to create the universe, or so some might believe.

    It was very much bigger than a firecracker, or a thermonuclear detonation, or a core-collapse supernova. Most people would say it was a pretty big event (bang or otherwise). Even if it was "small", its results were pretty big (leading us back to the accepted Oxford Languages definition).

    Most of your other comments likely will never be explained by puny humans, or AI.

    Any questions which start with "why" may not have any reasonable answers. Questions which start with "how" may have reasonable answers, assuming they can be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post
    Most of your other comments likely will never be explained by puny humans, or AI.
    Unless we live in a simulation or a holographic universe.
    Read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.

    Any questions which start with "why" may not have any reasonable answers. Questions which start with "how" may have reasonable answers, assuming they can be found.
    There are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.
    There are maybe's, but there are no absolute facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post

    Unless we live in a simulation or a holographic universe.

    There are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.

    There are maybe's, but there are no absolute facts.


    A "simulation" begs a "simulator", which begs yet another. etc. Such things are "unknown unknowns".

    A holographic universe also appears to fall under the "unknown unknowns".

    The absence of "absolute facts" suggests everything is "unknown unknowns".

    It would appear that "unknown unknowns" rule. A perfectly reasonable answer to all questions.

    We simply do not know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,787
    What is scientific fact soon becomes a half truth which in turn becomes another half truth, as will surely be the case with the birth of the universe.
    Science and philosophy have one thing in common. Both are based on speculation.
    It may be true that science has outpaced philosophy, but it is always trying to catch up with the realm of science fiction.
    If the latter fails then you can simply argue it was fiction in the first place.

    The only arguments I can think of for our privileged place in the universe are the anthropic principle and the biological explanation that evolution has given us bodies and brains.
    A brain that understands way into the cosmos is only a by-product of what was simply meant to keep us moving and pass our DNA to the next generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 18th, 2018, 12:57 AM
  2. Dawn of the conceptually capable computer.
    By Heartart in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 09:43 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 19th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •