We are starting to see beautiful images of distant galaxy fields from the James Webb Space Telescope going out to further distances than the Hubble deep field. What would be interesting would be to plot the number of galaxies by distance.
The idea would be to start at 1 billion light years distance or a look back time of around 1 billion years. If we want to study the number of galaxies in a cube of side 50 million light years then the angular dimension that we would start with would be 50/1000 times 360 degrees which is 1.8 degrees. The red shift data for each galaxy would be available in the data so that the distance of each galaxy can be estimated.
The first data point would be all those galaxies which fall between 1 billion and 1.05 billion light years and lie with the square of 1.8 x 1.8 degrees. Then the next data point would be all those galaxies which fall between 1.05 billion and 1.1 billion light years distance and lie with the reduced square of 1.714 x 1.714 degrees. After ten data points we are at 2 billion light years with a square size of 0.9 x 0.9 degrees. By the time we get to 13 billion light years we are looking at data points between 12.95 billion and 13 billion light years distance in a square size of 0.138 x 0.138 degrees.
From this we would have 120 data points giving the count of galaxies in a 50 million light year cube from 1 billion to 13 billion light years.
What the Big Bang model tells us is that as we go back in time the universe gets hotter and hotter and the galaxies get closer and closer together so we should see a steadily increasing number of galaxies per unit volume. This would be a very useful verification of the Big Bang theory or a clear falsification.
Richard
Dear Richard, dear Riccardo,
I find Richard's idea/proposal interesting. Has no one performed such counts before? Of course, it is much better to do it with the further/deeper looking JWST, but it could in principle also be done with Hubble images, just with a shorter time span we are looking back at, right? Or am I wrong?
I agree with Riccardo that whatever results such observations yielded, they probably won't constitute "definitive" evidence for verification or falsification, respectively, in the eyes of the opposing camps in the fiercely fought debate on the Big Bang-model.
Richard, is there any specific model of cosmological evolution that you prefer as an alternative to the Big Bang model? (I recall that you wrote about your work on a "rest frame" for the universe, right?).
Best,
Julius
Julius Riese Hi Julius. Yes I am the author of the space rest frame paper. My view on the evolution of the universe is explained here:
https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc
Richard
Riccardo C. Storti Hi Riccardo. I take your point that it will take a lot of convincing to throw out the Big Bang model but I think the JWST observations are an excellent starting point.
In this thread I am working the problem based on galaxies in the range 1 billion to 13 billion years look back time.
There is also the problem of getting from the initial cloud of gas and dust to form stars in a fairly uniform distribution and then for these stars to aggregate together into galaxies with their specific structure of central black hole and dark matter halo.
I think as the weight of evidence builds, people will be more likely to consider alternatives. The biggest hurdle has been finding an alternative explanation for the CMB which is caused by radiating matter held at the event horizon of the universe.
Richard
Riccardo C. Storti Yes, I think you are right. However, regardless of who gets the credit I think the truth will win out eventually.
Richard
Riccardo C. Storti Yes. There is a fundamental problem with progress in physics and cosmology when there is a need for a paradigm shift. Naturally all science funding has to go to mainstream science which includes things like the Big Bang, lambda CDM, the standard model of particle physics, quantum physics, special relativity.
But what if there is a fundamental problem with one or more of these theories? Mainstream science is likely to avoid active debate and hold on to current theories well past their sell by date.
I think the most important thing is to avoid people spending 3 years wasted on a phd when the underlying assumptions are shown to be false.
Richard
Riccardo C. Storti Yes, I agree. There is also an inevitable problem with academic research that the academic very much wants to get credit for their own ideas. This leads to competition and a lack of openness.
What we need is free thinking without worrying about who had the ideas. This is one of the great benefits of being 77 and retired with no career aspirations or desire for book royalties or YouTube income.
When it comes to credit it is the people who tirelessly work on Wikipedia or ResearchGate or observational astronomy or resources like the NASA Extragalactic Database that deserve a lot of credit.
With the resources available on the internet, it is not hard to figure it all out if you have the time.
Richard
Hi Riccardo. That is really hard and I can fully understand your motivation. Don't feel aggrieved with the system. It is what it is. I would just focus on your needs and do what you can.
Sincere best wishes. Richard
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics