Universe Breaking Galaxies

[Caruso]

'Universe Breakers' found by the James Webb Telescope

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/un...

As far as I can tell it just means that our understanding of conditions in the early universe are wrong, or our understanding of the process of star and galaxy formation are wrong, or my pet theory - that time is non-linear and passed faster in the early universe and is slowing down as the universe ages.

What are your thoughts?

[Super Sonic]

Ever since I heard that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, I have thought that that means it is older than previously thought. This would seem to corroborate that.

[Caruso]

Super Sonic said:

Ever since I heard that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, I have thought that that means it is older than previously thought. This would seem to corroborate that.

I've had that same feeling. But then Physics has a way of telling you that you're feelings are wrong. But in this case I also think that the universe is older than we think by our current measure of time.

[Leithen]

An astrophysicist explains.

[Simpo Two]

Super Sonic said:

Ever since I heard that the expansion of the universe is accelerating...

What force is accelerating it?

[Super Sonic]

Simpo Two said:

What force is accelerating it?

Not currently known, but the expansion is known to be accelerating. The force causing the acceleration has been called 'dark energy' but nobody knows anything about it beyond the fact that it accelerating the expansion.

[SpudLink]

Caruso said:

'Universe Breakers' found by the James Webb Telescope

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/un...

As far as I can tell it just means that our understanding of conditions in the early universe are wrong, or our understanding of the process of star and galaxy formation are wrong, or my pet theory - that time is non-linear and passed faster in the early universe and is slowing down as the universe ages.

What are your thoughts?

That’s an interesting idea. Could you explain your reasoning for your theory?

[Simpo Two]

SpudLink said:

Caruso said:

'Universe Breakers' found by the James Webb Telescope

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/un...

As far as I can tell it just means that our understanding of conditions in the early universe are wrong, or our understanding of the process of star and galaxy formation are wrong, or my pet theory - that time is non-linear and passed faster in the early universe and is slowing down as the universe ages.

What are your thoughts?

That’s an interesting idea. Could you explain your reasoning for your theory?

My guess would be that time and gravity are related, so as the density of the universe decreases as it expands, the slower time passes. But it's all relative so it doesn't matter

[anonymous-user]

Isn’t that the exact opposite of Einstein’s theories of relativity? As you fall into a black hole - ie a very dense gravity well caused by a concentration of mass, time slows down. The implication would be that in the early stages of the universe time ran slowly, not quickly.

Though AIUI the universe “unpacked” in a matter of seconds to something far far less dense than what you’d find around a black hole.

[Caruso]

SpudLink said:

Caruso said:

'Universe Breakers' found by the James Webb Telescope

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/un...

As far as I can tell it just means that our understanding of conditions in the early universe are wrong, or our understanding of the process of star and galaxy formation are wrong, or my pet theory - that time is non-linear and passed faster in the early universe and is slowing down as the universe ages.

What are your thoughts?

That’s an interesting idea. Could you explain your reasoning for your theory?

Well it's not especially scientific, just a hunch that the universe seems to be older than it has been determined to be. There are so many problems with our current model such as the universe expanding faster than the speed of light, dark matter, and other things, that it seems there's a fundamental change in our assumptions needed to solve them.

[Pobolycwm]

There`s quite a few could /possibly /if /maybe statements in the article, the scientist posing question is quite an expert in her field, in that her interest lies in looking at the age of the universe from infra red imaging / red shift , she is however an "expert" ( relative to most of us knuckle draggers ) so she`s a good as anyone to pose the question from the data.

I can`t see any reference in James Webb feeds to this anomaly so it might be a red herring ( most likely ) or just possibly something earth shattering re age of the universe etc which they`re quietly looking at before validating/discounting

But like a few people with an interest in the cosmos et al I do share the suspicion ( as do a few on this thread ) that we might be barking up the wrong tree with regard to our pursuit of "quantifying" our understanding, from what I have read over the years I do find it somewhat disturbing that the late Douglas Adams makes as much sense as anyone