M-Theory/String Theory - Science or Speculation??

[disillusioned]

 

hyperholiday: You indicated in the other thread that you were interested in M-theory, and I promised to explain why I don't consider it to properly be science. I'm hoping this thread will examine that topic in some detail. Other participants are welcome, of course. The more perspectives the better.

 

To get us started, I'd like to suggest that participants read the following article by Jim Holt.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/02/unstrung-2/amp

 

There are a lot of salient points in the article, some of which are tangential to the topic at hand. But it does describe string theory and M-theory fairly well in layman's terms, which is why I suggest reading it first.

 

I should say at the outset that I'm not an expert here. I know a thing or two about physics,  but that's about it. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Hopefully we can all learn something.

[Joshpantera]

Good article. 

 

After I read Brian Greene (The Elegant Universe), I remember questioning in my mind what that even means - the last divisible properties of matter. Is that even possible? Or could it be infinitely divided? With no absolute bottom to the microcosm? Matching a macrocosm with no top end. 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 5/17/2019 at 2:14 PM, disillusioned said:

 

hyperholiday: You indicated in the other thread that you were interested in M-theory, and I promised to explain why I don't consider it to properly be science. I'm hoping this thread will examine that topic in some detail. Other participants are welcome, of course. The more perspectives the better.

 

To get us started, I'd like to suggest that participants read the following article by Jim Holt.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/02/unstrung-2/amp

 

There are a lot of salient points in the article, some of which are tangential to the topic at hand. But it does describe string theory and M-theory fairly well in layman's terms, which is why I suggest reading it first.

 

I should say at the outset that I'm not an expert here. I know a thing or two about physics,  but that's about it. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Hopefully we can all learn something.

 

Yes, M Theory is neither science, nor science theory. Here are a number of definitions relating to scientific and string theories in general .

---------------------------------------------------------

A scientific theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. A scientific theory must make testable predictions, must be falsifiable, and embody scientific knowledge.  The primary method of reasoning for a scientific theory is abduction.

------------------------------------------------------------------

String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called “strings.” It is a theory in a mathematical sense rather than a scientific one. It proposes as many as 7 additional unobserved micro-dimensions totaling as many as 11 dimensions in all. It describes how these hypothetical strings and their additional dimensions propagate through space and interact with each other.

 

Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny super symmetric strings, whereby such super-symmetric particle partners or their counterpart strings have never been observed.

 

M-theory is a mathematical theory that claims to unify all consistent versions of super-string theory and has been called a Theory of Everything, claiming that all of physics could have its basis in this one all encompassing mathematical super-string theory.

 

All three of the above are string theories of one kind or another. String theories collectively have been called:

 

“The most ambitious idea(s) ever outlined by scientists (but since 2014) has suffered remarkable setbacks. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women."

 

"This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.”

 

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-string-theory.html

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#246b10d86524

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9817

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610168.pdf

 

There is no end to the criticisms of string theory and M theory, although many still argue in their behalf and continue to consider their possibilities.

 

 

 

[JohnnyWishbone]

11 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

hyperholiday: You indicated in the other thread that you were interested in M-theory, and I promised to explain why I don't consider it to properly be science. I'm hoping this thread will examine that topic in some detail. Other participants are welcome, of course. The more perspectives the better.

 

To get us started, I'd like to suggest that participants read the following article by Jim Holt.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/02/unstrung-2/amp

 

There are a lot of salient points in the article, some of which are tangential to the topic at hand. But it does describe string theory and M-theory fairly well in layman's terms, which is why I suggest reading it first.

 

I should say at the outset that I'm not an expert here. I know a thing or two about physics,  but that's about it. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Hopefully we can all learn something.

I'm still reading it (It will take some time)

 

Question: This string world hasn't been observed yet?

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, hyperholiday said:

I'm still reading it (It will take some time)

 

Question: This string world hasn't been observed yet?

 

No it has not.

 

String theory is a purely mathematical/conceptual description of how things might be. It proposes, as pantheory noted, that matter at the most fundamental level is composed of one dimensional strings,  as opposed to particles. This is just an idea. There is zero observational evidence to back it up. That,  in itself,  would not be that big of a problem, though, if string theory made actual, testable predictions. But it doesn't. What it does have is a certain explanatory power. But that's not good enough for it to be science! The God hypothesis also has some explanatory power. Science needs to do more than that.

 

Keep reading. By the end of the article, you'll see that string theory also leads to quite a few non-trivial problems which are not easy to resolve.

[JohnnyWishbone]

14 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

No it has not.

 

String theory is a purely mathematical/conceptual description of how things might be. It proposes, as pantheory noted, that matter at the most fundamental level is composed of one dimensional strings,  as opposed to particles. This is just an idea. There is zero observational evidence to back it up. That,  in itself,  would not be that big of a problem, though, if string theory made actual, testable predictions. But it doesn't. What it does have is a certain explanatory power. But that's not good enough for it to be science! The God hypothesis also has some explanatory power. Science needs to do more than that.

 

Keep reading. By the end of the article, you'll see that string theory also leads to quite a few non-trivial problems which are not easy to resolve.

I agree with you, on the basis that these mathematical formulas scientist create are spitting out various opinions on the race to a unified cosmological theory.

 

Observation has to be paramount to begin with.

[pantheory]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:38 PM, hyperholiday said:

I agree with you, on the basis that these mathematical formulas scientist create are spitting out various opinions on the race to a unified cosmological theory.

 

Observation has to be paramount to begin with.

 

Maybe the prevailing opinion at this time is that no mathematical formulations, separate from scientific theory, could ever become a theory of everything. Many or most theorists at this time no longer think that string theory has any chance of being a correct.  String theory requires too many pillars of support that probably can never be observed since they probably don't exist -- such as 7 additional unobserved dimensions which have never been observed.

 

IMO there will never be a mathematically based Theory of Everything. Instead such a theory of everything must be first founded on both science and logic confirmed by observation, and its mathematics will instead be a generally unrelated ensemble like the mathematics of physics are today.

[JohnnyWishbone]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Maybe the prevailing opinion at this time is that no mathematical formulations, separate from scientific theory, could ever become a theory of everything. Many or most theorists at this time no longer think that string theory has any chance of being a correct.  String theory requires too many pillars of support that probably can never be observed since they probably don't exist -- such as 7 additional unobserved dimensions which have never been observed.

 

IMO there will never be a mathematically based Theory of Everything. Instead such a theory must be first founded on both science and logic confirmed by observation, and its mathematics will instead be a generally unrelated ensemble as the mathematics of physics are today.

Yes, and my reasoning is that string theory smacks of assumptions, and therefore land's in the realm of the believed rather than the known.

[pantheory]

On 5/18/2019 at 8:03 PM, hyperholiday said:

Yes, and my reasoning is that string theory smacks of assumptions, and therefore land's in the realm of the believed rather than the known.

 

Yes, it was believed rather than being science theory, not only because of its assumptions, but also because none of its assertions have ever been observed, and it never was a scientific theory in the first place.  Instead string theory is a mathematical theory which follows math-logic protocol, which often has nothing to do with known reality. Now there are only a slim few theorists that believe in it at all. Even more so for M-theory since it is more complicated string theory requiring super-symmetry, also entities never observed.

[disillusioned]

On 5/18/2019 at 8:38 PM, hyperholiday said:

I agree with you, on the basis that these mathematical formulas scientist create are spitting out various opinions on the race to a unified cosmological theory.

 

Observation has to be paramount to begin with.

 

Yes, if we want to be doing science,  the theory needs to be rooted in observation. Without empirical evidence, what you have may be logically consistent,  elegant,  even beautiful,  but it isn't science.

 

I don't personally think that a theory of everything is actually possible. It actually seems to me to be fairly silly to think that it should be. Why should we think that human evolution had equipped us to accurately describe how the universe actually is in its entirety? This seems to me to be asking me to believe a bit too much. Now,  that doesn't mean that we can't say anything about the universe, it just means that we shouldn't expect to be able to say everything. 

 

Where string theorists went wrong,  in my opinion,  is that they set out specifically trying to build a theory of everything. Then they tried to apply it to the universe in an explanatory fashion. That's fine, but unless it is based on observation (it isn't) or makes testable predictions (it doesn't) it's really just a guess.

 

Now,  this doesn't mean that string theory is entirely useless. It has led to some developments in mathematics. And that's great. I don't think it should necessarily be done away with, but it isn't really correct to call it physics,  in my view. 

[JohnnyWishbone]

8 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, if we want to be doing science,  the theory needs to be rooted in observation. Without empirical evidence, what you have may be logically consistent,  elegant,  even beautiful,  but it isn't science.

 

I don't personally think they a theory of everything is actually possible. It actually seems to me to be fairly silly to think that it should be. Why should we think that human evolution had equipped us to accurately describe how the universe actually is in its entirety? This seems to me to be asking me to believe a bit too much. Now,  they doesn't mean that we can't say anything about the universe, it just means that we shouldn't expect to be able to say everything. 

 

Where string theorists went wrong,  in my opinion,  is that they set out specifically trying to build a theory of everything. Then they tried to apply it to the universe in an explanatory fashion. That's fine, but unless it is based on observation (it isn't) or makes testable predictions (it doesn't) it's really just a guess.

 

Now,  this doesn't mean that string theory is entirely useless. It has led to some developments in mathematics. And that's great. I don't think it should necessarily be done away with, but it isn't really correct to call it physics,  in my view. 

While we are on cosmology, what about the theory of the big bang? Sure they have observational data (After the fact) but when they turn the clock back and crunch everything into a single point (The singularity) then all mathematical equations break down. They arrive at a point they cannot observe & cannot understand mathematically.

[disillusioned]

On 5/20/2019 at 3:52 PM, JohnnyWishbone said:

While we are on cosmology, what about the theory of the big bang? Sure they have observational data (After the fact) but when they turn the clock back and crunch everything into a single point (The singularity) then all mathematical equations break down. They arrive at a point they cannot observe & cannot understand mathematically.

 

"Big bang" cosmology takes a number of forms nowadays. Some of these push the bounds, in my view, of what may properly be called science. But the big bang theory itself is well-established, proper science,  based in observation and making many testable predictions.

[JohnnyWishbone]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

"Big bang" cosmology takes a number of forms nowadays. Some of these push the bounds, in my view, of what may properly be called science. But the big bang theory itself is well-established, proper science,  based in observation and making many testable predictions.

That it began from a singularity?

 

How does an infinitesimal point be an infinitesimal point without there being an outside to distinguish that it is a infinitesimal point?

[disillusioned]

49 minutes ago, JohnnyWishbone said:

That it began from a singularity?

 

How does an infinitesimal point be an infinitesimal point without there being an outside to distinguish that it is a infinitesimal point?

 

The singularity as such is not necessarily a literal point. It's just the result of an extrapolation backwards in time. Plenty of physicists maintain that there may not have been a literal singularity in the way you describe. If there was,  through,  then the laws of physics would break down at that point. There wouldn't be any physics. 

 

The question of there being something "outside" the singularity I think is an example of natural language and modes of thought not lending themselves to this topic. It's a bit like asking what came before the universe. If time is a facet of the universe,  then unless there is a universe,  there is no before. Similarly,  you can make the universe arbitrarily small,  but if it is all that exists,  then there is literally nothing outside of it. So even if there was a literal singularity, it wouldn't be a point in space. Space only exists in the universe. 

 

There are other possible answers to this as well, including various multiverse models. Personally, I think that these tend to push against the bounds of science, but that's neither here nor there. Literal singularity aside, the big bang model has made testable predictions, and been confirmed. Probably the most significant of these is the CMB. So the big bang model fits the definition of a scientific theory quite well. 

[Joshpantera]

 

@LuthAMF

 

 

[pantheory]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:52 PM, JohnnyWishbone said:

While we are on cosmology, what about the theory of the big bang? Sure they have observational data (After the fact) but when they turn the clock back and crunch everything into a single point (The singularity) then all mathematical equations break down. They arrive at a point they cannot observe & cannot understand mathematically.

 

Of course the Big Bang is off topic but somewhat related to a possible theory of everything. Observation of data is what science is all about, so nearly all agree that the Big Bang is a proper theory. The problem is that what you are observing must be interpreted correctly. From the definition of a scientific theory given above, a theory "must make testable predictions, (and) must be falsifiable. In this way IMO the Big Bang model is not very good.  Many ongoing predictions of the Big Bang fail in logic, have been contradicted, or many observations seem to be complete surprises. These failings have led to two relatively new hypothesis that were added to the theory ad hoc, which means they were made so the theory might continue to match observations. The new hypothesis have been named Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. Most believe that the Inflation hypothesis is not testable, the dark matter hypothesis have led to many speculations as to what dark matter might be, and many of these ideas have been experimentally tested, but to date science has come up with blanks -- no promising leads as yet. Although the Nobel Prize was given for the discovery of dark energy, they still only speculate as to what it might be. Because of observations they have been incorporated into the Big Bang model. It is now called the Lambda, cold dark matter theory.  Lambda stands for dark energy, and cold dark matter is the preferred model for the possibility concerning the speculated temperature of hypothetical dark matter. 

 

But a Theory with 3 of its 4 foundation pillars based upon unknown hypotheses, is not a very good one. The 4th foundation pillar is that the universe is expanding. For this the primary evidence is the observed redshift of distant galaxies which can be readily explained by a Doppler redshift, meaning that the light that galaxies emit as galaxies move away from us would redden.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

 

Today the original BB explanation of Doppler galactic redshifts has been replaced by the expansion of space idea, the idea being as space expands the light waves within it lengthen and therefore appear redder. But Expanding space is again another untestable hypothesis, and there are dozens of other explanations for the observed galactic redshifts. There are many known problems with the Big Bang theory, the most notable of which an associate and I explained about 4 years ago.

 

Here is the press release to it:

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html

 

And here is the paper.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

Mainstream astronomers and theorists may have heard of just a few alternatives to the Big Bang Theory. Here are just a few of many that have not been disproved. Few if any of them are considered mainstream theory since such a theory should have more than just a few mainstream adherents.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

Maybe the most well known of these alternatives is called tired light. As light waves travel through space they accordingly would be stretched out by interaction with a cosmic medium. Such proposed mediums today are dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs field, gravitons, the Zero Point Field, etc. The interaction with any of these hypothetical mediums could stretch light, redshifting it.  Another more well known phenomena is called gravitational redshifting. This is not theory but a known phenomena. Here is a link to it.

 

https://futurism.com/gravitational-redshift-the-universe-in-motion

 

Light in its travels across space must resist its encounters with gravity on its entire trip as it passes by countless stars and galaxies. We know that light can be bent by gravity, called gravitational lensing, but we also know that it can be stretched out by gravity. For instance, we know that the light coming from the center of the sun, where gravity is at its strongest, is observed as being redder than the light coming from the sun's periphery. So gravitational redshifting could explain the galactic redshifting we observe. And again, there are many other possible explanations for these observed redshifts.

 

If any of these other explanations were somehow shown to be valid then the observable universe may not be expanding and the Big Bang model would likely be replaced by a far simpler theory.

 

When the James Webb space telescope goes up and is properly placed, now predicted to be March 2021, the Big Bang model and other models that predict an older or infinite universe will be tested. The Big Bang model predicts that in its beginning the universe contained only small, young, newly forming bright blue galaxies. No very large appearing red galaxies, or very large clusters should have existed at that time according to the Big Bang model. If this is what is observed at that time then nearly all alternative models of an older universe would be wrong and generally would be disproved. But instead, if these galactic pictures instead look very similar to the Hubble Deep Field pictures, with galaxy clusters containing what appear to be very large, very small, both young and old appearing galaxies, they will have to fiddle with the Inflation hypothesis to allow for a much older universe. If this happens many will consider that the Big Bang model has been disproved and will start carefully looking for alternative models, of which there are almost countless to choose from. So it may not take that long for the validity of the present cosmology to fall into doubt.

 

[JohnnyWishbone]

41 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Of course the Big Bang is off topic but somewhat related to a possible theory of everything. Observation of data is what science is all about, so nearly all agree that the Big Bang is a proper theory. The problem is that what you are observing must be interpreted correctly. From the definition of a scientific theory given above, a theory "must make testable predictions, (and) must be falsifiable. In this way IMO the Big Bang model is not very good.  Many ongoing predictions of the Big Bang fail in logic, have been contradicted, or many observations seem to be complete surprises. These failings have led to two relatively new hypothesis that were added to the theory ad hoc, which means they were made so the theory might continue to match observations. The new hypothesis have been named Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. Most believe that the Inflation hypothesis is not testable, the dark matter hypothesis have led to many speculations as to what dark matter might be, and many of these ideas have been experimentally tested, but to date science has come up with blanks -- no promising leads as yet. Although the Nobel Prize was given for the discovery of dark energy, they still only speculate as to what it might be. Because of observations they have been incorporated into the Big Bang model. It is now called the Lambda, cold dark matter theory.  Lambda stands for dark energy, and cold dark matter is the preferred model for the possibility concerning the speculated temperature of hypothetical dark matter. 

 

But a Theory with 3 of its 4 foundation pillars based upon unknown hypotheses is not a very good one. The 4th foundation pillar is that the universe is expanding. For this the primary evidence is the observed redshift of distant galaxies which can be readily explained by a Doppler redshift, meaning that the light that galaxies emit as galaxies move away from us would redden.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

 

Today the Doppler explanation of galactic redshifts has been replaced by the expansion of space idea, the idea being as space expands the light waves within it also lengthen and therefore appear redder. But Expanding space is again another untestable hypothesis and there are dozens of other explanations for the observed galactic redshifts. There are many know problems with the Big Bang theory, the most notable of which an associate and I explained about 5 years ago.

 

Here is the press release to it:

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html

 

And here is the paper.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

Mainstream astronomers and theorists may have heard of just a few alternatives to the Big Bang Theory. Here are just a very few of them that have not been disproved. Few if any of them are considered mainstream theory, meaning that they should have more than a few mainstream adherents.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

Maybe the most well know of these alternatives is called tired light. As light waves travel through space they accordingly would be stretched out by interaction with a cosmic medium. Such proposed mediums today have been dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs field, gravitons, the Zero Point Field, etc. The interaction with any of these that are valid could stretch light redshifting it.  Another more well know phenomena is called gravitational redshifting. This is not theory but a known phenomena. Here is a link to that.

 

https://futurism.com/gravitational-redshift-the-universe-in-motion

 

Light in its travels must resist its encounters with gravity on its entire trip as it passes by countless stars and galaxies. We know that light can be bent by gravity, called gravitational lensing, but we also know that it can be stretched out. We know that the light coming from the center of the sun, where gravity is at its strongest, is observed as being redder than the light coming from the sun's periphery. So gravitational redshifting could explain the galactic redshifting we observe. And again, there are many other possible explanations for these observed redshifts.

 

If any of these other explanations were somehow shown to be valid then the observable universe may not be expanding and the Big Bang model would likely be replaced by a far simpler theory.

 

When the James Webb space telescope goes up and is properly placed, now predicted to be March 2021, the Big Bang model and other models that predict an older or infinite universe will be tested. The Big Bang model predicts that in its beginning the universe contained only small, young, newly forming bright blue galaxies. No very large appearing red galaxies should have existed at this time according to the Big Bang model. If this is what is observed at that time then nearly all alternative models of an older universe would be wrong and generally would be disproved. But instead, if these galactic pictures instead look very similar to the Hubble Deep Field pictures, with galaxy clusters containing what appear to be very large, very small, both young and old appearing galaxies, they will have to fiddle with the Inflation hypothesis to allow for a much older universe. If this happens many will consider that the Big Bang model has been disproved and will start carefully looking at  alternative models, of which there are almost countless to choose from. So it may not take that long for the validity of the present cosmology to fall into doubt.

 

 

 

 

Well it's better than Gawd did it, and that settles it.

[pantheory]

1 minute ago, JohnnyWishbone said:

Well it's better than Gawd did it, and that settles it.

 

Yup, far better

[disillusioned]

FWIW, I tend to agree that there are problems with the big bang theory, and I tend to be suspicious (as I alluded to in my previous post) of inflationary theories and theories of dark matter. But the thing is, a theory being falsifiable doesn't mean that it gets thrown out wholesale if there are some surprises. Often it means it just gets amended. I think inflation and dark matter are attempts at doing this for the big bang theory. The problem is,  they aren't exactly testable (yet). This means that we should be open to alternatives. Some people aren't,  and I think they should take a long hard look at their biases.

 

But. Any proposed replacement would need to explain all of the evidence (and there's quite a bit) that supports the big bang theory. It would also need to make quite a few testable predictions of its own. If it could do this, then eventually it would win prominence. It might take time,  and it might go through a variety of iterations along the way,  but if it made strong enough predictions that were confirmed,  it would emerge as the dominant theory eventually.  That's how science works. And,  incidentally,  that's why I think string theory/M- theory will eventually fade away: they don't do this. When another theory that does comes along,  we'll move on. 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

FWIW, I tend to agree that there are problems with the big bang theory, and I tend to be suspicious (as I alluded to in my previous post) of inflationary theories and theories of dark matter. But the thing is, a theory being falsifiable doesn't mean that it gets thrown out wholesale if there are some surprises. Often it means it just gets amended. I think inflation and dark matter are attempts at doing this for the big bang theory. The problem is,  they aren't exactly testable (yet). This means that we should be open to alternatives. Some people aren't,  and I think they should take a long hard look at their biases.

 

But. Any proposed replacement would need to explain all of the evidence (and there's quite a bit) that supports the big bang theory. It would also need to make quite a few testable predictions of its own. If it could do this, then eventually it would win prominence. It might take time,  and it might go through a variety of iterations along the way,  but if it made strong enough predictions that were confirmed,  it would emerge as the dominant theory eventually.  That's how science works. And,  incidentally,  that's why I think string theory/M- theory will eventually fade away: they don't do this. When another theory that does comes along,  we'll move on. 

 

I agree with you in every respect you discussed.

 

IMO. Three of the four foundation pillars of the present Big Bang model are not testable: Inflation, dark energy, and the expansion of space. Although most think there is evidence to support these hypothesis, all are seriously questionable if none can possibly be confirmed by  observation. The Big Bang therefore then would be a theory founded upon three untestable hypothesis. The fourth foundation pillar of the model is dark matter. So far they have come up with nothing concerning its reality.  All four of these hypothesis have more likely alternative explanations IMO. Other supposed evidence for the "theory" is that the observed microwave background is a remnant of an original BB, and that the abundance of light elements cannot be explained by stellar synthesis. But there are also good alternative explanations for these observations.  I think the James Webb will put an end to the BB model, when old appearing galaxies and galaxy clusters are observed at the farthest possible distances. Maybe 2-3 years after such observations the search will be on for alternatives. Unknown to most astronomers, mainstream theorists, and the public in general, there is a great multitude of such alternatives that cannot be disproved by these, or any other observations to date -- and which have equal or better explanations and interpretations for all observations to date IMO.

[Moonobserver]

I know this thread is some months old, but it seems to refer to a continuing issue.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna879346

[pantheory]

On 10/11/2019 at 7:27 PM, Moonobserver said:

I know this thread is some months old, but it seems to refer to a continuing issue.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna879346

 

You are right. This is a continuing issue. IMO there are a great many problems with mainstream physics theory today. String theory and M theory are just two obvious examples as you pointed out by your link above.