Crying Astronomers Admit Failure

Unexpected findings have
knocked out experts’ hubris.
Are they down for the count?

 

They were, oh, so confident. All the stuff we see is just 5% of what exists. The rest is mysterious, unknown stuff. Nothing banged and became everything. First, it had to inflate unbelievably fast, nobody knows how. Then matter emerged from the energy of this cosmic explosion from nothing, and slowly formed the first stars, then the first primitive galaxies. Slowly, gradually, our universe took shape, and here we are, 13 billion years later, figuring it all out, thanks to Type 1a supernovas, our “standard candle” that allow astronomers to measure distances accurately. Experts agreed. This was the true history of the universe. The “standard model” had achieved consensus.

Then observations suggested that the universe was expanding faster than thought. Cosmologists gulped but incorporated this surprise into their big bang theory, dubbing it “dark energy” which nobody understands. Then they were shocked to learn that the predicted vacuum energy was off from measurement by 120 orders of magnitude. Another large discrepancy was found between the cosmic microwave prediction of the expansion rate and the expansion observed by supernovas (the Hubble Tension). Cosmologists started whimpering. Then the James Webb Space Telescope, despite delays of a decade and enormous cost overruns, launched and successfully deployed. It started finding the impossible: mature galaxies almost all the way back to the first stars. Cosmologists started bawling.

We don’t need to comment much on the following articles supporting this picture. You can read their own words from their own press releases.

Hubble tension is now in our cosmic backyard, sending cosmology into crisis (Space.com, 22 Jan 2025). Keith Cooper relates new measurements of supernovas in the Coma Cluster. They only make the Hubble tension worse. He admits that the best minds working on the big bang have lost their way. All they can do is speculate about theory rescue devices.

So what could be causing the Hubble tension? Attention is now focused on the early universe and whether there was something there not predicted by the standard model that could have affected the measurements. Perhaps there was an extra burst of dark energy in the early universe, or maybe energy was injected into the early cosmos by radiation from axions, which are theoretical particles and one candidate for the identity of dark matter. It’s all still very speculative.

In the meantime the Coma cluster result really hammers home how troubling the Hubble tension is. Indeed, Scolnic thinks that the Coma Cluster findings have irreversibly deepened the mystery, in conclusion stating ominously that “the Hubble tension is now a Hubble crisis.”

Dan Scolnic Shows that the Universe Is Still Full of Surprises (Duke University, 16 Jan 2025). Here’s the cosmologist shouting “crisis.”

A new measurement confirms what previous — and highly debated — results had shown: The Universe is expanding faster than predicted by theoretical models, and faster than can be explained by our current understanding [sic?] of physics.

This discrepancy between model and data became known as the Hubble tension. Now, results published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters provide even stronger support to the faster rate of expansion.

“The tension now turns into a crisis,” said Dan Scolnic, who led the research team.

‘Our model of cosmology might be broken‘: New study reveals the universe is expanding too fast for physics to explain (Live Science, 21 Jan 2025). Ben Turner agrees with Cooper that scientists cannot explain the latest findings. “Astronomers have been confounded by recent evidence that the universe expanded at different rates throughout its life. New findings risk turning the tension into a crisis, scientists say.”

The Hubble tension just got tenser — with new measurements revealing that the universe is expanding faster than our current understanding of physics can explain.

Over the past decade, cosmology has been embroiled in a growing crisis. Fuelling it are observations, first made by the Hubble Space Telescope and later by the James Webb Space Telescope, that the universe is expanding at different rates depending on where astronomers look.

The Coma cluster results have made the situation worse. We expect any day now to see a job ad for a CCCC (Crying Cosmologist Crisis Counselor).

James Webb telescope uncovers massive ‘grand design’ spiral galaxy in the early universe — and scientists can’t explain how it got so big, so fast (Space.com, 2 Jan 2025). Let’s play Stump the Experts. “[T]he new JWST discovery of a ‘grand design’ spiral galaxy just 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang has scientists stumped.”

Our best theory of cosmology is wrong. That is a problem, but nature does not care about our theories!

Hubble trouble or Superbubble? Astronomers need to escape the ‘supervoid’ to solve cosmology crisis (Space.com, 18 Dec 2024). Robert Lea quotes Indranil Banik from the University of St. Andrews. “Our best theory of cosmology is wrong. That is a problem, but nature does not care about our theories!”

The earliest galaxies formed amazingly fast after the Big Bang. Do they break the universe or change its age?  (The Conversation, 3 Oct 2024). Here’s the problem, but Sandro Tacchella, eager to keep his job at Cambridge, says that cosmologists are “exploring possibilities”— which means, possibilities for saving theory from evidence.

The surprising findings from JWST of bright galaxies at high redshifts, or distances, could imply that these galaxies matured faster than expected after the Big Bang. This is important because it would challenge existing models of galaxy formation.

Early Galaxies Were Not Too Big for Their Britches After All (University of Texas, 26 Aug 2024). This press release offers hankies to the bawling cosmologists. But Marc Airhart’s news is not all comforting. It’s like the joke about making both ends meet but causing a new break in the middle. Too bad his comfort in August was upended by later revelations from JWST in December and January.

Often in science, when you answer one question, that leads to new questions. Although the researchers have shown that the standard model of cosmology probably is not broken, their work points to the need for new ideas in star formation.

‘Little red dot’ galaxies are breaking theories of cosmic evolution (New Scientist, 27 June 2024). Cosmologist tears have been shed for months, and the news since June has been giving them more woes to cry about.

Crying in the Dark

‘Heavy’ dark matter would rip our understanding of the universe apart, new research suggests (Space.com, 21 Jan 2025). Even chief speculator Paul Sutter is lost in space. “‘Heavy’ dark matter would rip our understanding of the universe apart, new research suggests.” How did this man get promoted to “Expert Voices” by Space.com?

‘A frankly embarrassing result’: We still know hardly anything about 95% of the universe (Live Science, 22 Jan 2025). In this reprint from his book, Guido Tonelli admits complete ignorance of dark energy, and failure of expectations. How wrong can experts be and still keep their jobs?

What scientists were seeing contradicted what they were expecting; the idea of the accelerated expansion of the universe was counterintuitive. Everyone expected that the attraction exerted by gravity would slowly reduce the expansion velocity of space-time, whereas the exact opposite was happening.

Cosmic voids may explain the universe’s acceleration without dark energy (Live Science, 22 Jan 2025). Andrey Feldman steps on a lot of toes by entertaining a suggestion that dark energy is an illusion.

In a new study, published Dec. 19, 2024 in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers analyzed data from the Pantheon+ survey — the most comprehensive dataset of type Ia supernovae, whose consistent brightness allows astronomers to measure distances across the universe with incredible precision. Their analysis suggests that what we perceive as acceleration might be an illusion caused by the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

So will the discoverers of cosmic acceleration have to give back the money from their 1998 Nobel Prizes? Probably not, but the idea is enough to cry about.

Huge if true – dark energy doesn’t exist, claims new study on supernovas  (The Conversation, 7 Jan 2025). Opponents of the reigning Lambda-CDM model (hot big bang with cold dark matter) introduce the “Timescape” model for universal expansion. They have no need of dark energy. That’s “huge if true” because a lot of former experts will cry and pout.

Dark energy ‘doesn’t exist’ so can’t be pushing ‘lumpy’ Universe apart – study (Royal Astronomical Society, 7 Jan 2025). More about the Timescape model, the alternative to the ΛCDM model most cosmologists have been teaching for decades. That’s a Royal pain.

Astronomers Crying, Too

Astronomers thought they understood fast radio bursts. A recent one calls that into question. (UC Berkeley, 21 Jan 2025). “The excitement turned to perplexity” when Calvin Yeung read the data from a radio telescope aimed at the source of a fast radio burst (FRB):

Instead of finding an expected “magnetar” — a highly magnetized, spinning neutron star left over from the core collapse of a young, massive star — “now the question was: How are you going to explain the presence of a magnetar inside this old, dead galaxy?” Leung said.

‘Ridiculously smooth’: James Webb telescope spies unusual pancake-like disk around nearby star Vega — and scientists can’t explain it (Live Science, 6 Nov 2024). Vega is a very popular object to observe at summer star parties. Now astronomers can’t explain a dust disk around it that was supposed to be forming planets. That’s ridiculous, for sure. “The findings could upend our understanding of how alien worlds form.” Well, then, it never was understanding to begin with, right?

The universe’s biggest explosions made some of the elements we are composed of. But there’s another mystery source out there (Space.com, 17 June 2024). This article from last summer raised another specter: the leading theory of heavy element formation, taught by astrophysicists for decades, could be wrong. Do they have an alternative to supernovas for elements heavier than iron? “These findings suggest that gamma ray bursts may not be the hoped-for crucial source of the universe’s heavy elements. Instead, there must be a source or sources still out there.” It’s a mystery, meaning that astronomers are clueless.

High-precision measurements challenge the understanding of Cepheids (EPFL News, 17 June 2024). While debunking consensus beliefs, let’s add another candidate: the “standard candle” Cepheid variable measuring stick may be wrong. The article worries that “there are more intricate processes occurring within these stars”— have all the processes been understood?

The JWST is rewriting astronomy textbooks (Universe Today, 6 June 2024). Headline says it all. In Tontological form, Evan Gough writes, “The JWST has shown us things about the early universe we never anticipated.”

Astronomers find long-missing dwarf galaxies—too many of them (Science, 22 May 2024). Last May, the leading American science journal Science admitted that “Apparent overabundance [of dwarf galaxies] means theories of how galaxies took shape in the early universe may need adjusting.”

Star bars show galaxies evolved faster than previously thought (Durham University, 4 April 2024). Going back as far as last April, we saw that galaxy evolution theory was already in trouble. Peering into supposed deep time, Durham astronomers determined that the “Universe’s early galaxies developed much faster than scientists previously thought.”

Planetary Scientists Not Happy Either

The Moon: a chunk ejected from Earth? (University of Göttingen, 15 Jan 2025). Say it isn’t so: scientists resurrecting the fission theory for the moon? Didn’t that get debunked after Apollo? What will we do with the fictional Mars-size object named Theia that all the TV shows talk about with artistic animations? How will the public ever trust scientists again?

The prevailing theory was that the Moon was the result of a collision between the early Earth and the protoplanet Theia. New measurements indicate that the Moon formed from material ejected from the Earth’s mantle with little contribution from Theia.

Is Earth the only planet in the solar system with plate tectonics? (Live Science, 18 Jan 2025). Nobody knows the answer to this question. But scientists should have learned the danger of building a theory on a sample size of one when Hot Jupiters were discovered, contrary to expectations about how extrasolar planetary systems ‘should’ evolve.

Space photo of the week: Look into Titan’s ‘eye,’ 20 years after the Huygens spacecraft’s historic landing on Saturn’s largest moon (Live Science, 20 Jan 2025). It’s worth celebrating the historic landing on Titan on its 20th anniversary. Planetary scientists still don’t know where the global ethane ocean went that all the experts predicted. They were wrong then; they remain wrong now. “Although the rivers and lakes appeared dry when Huygens touched down, evidence suggested that liquid methane may have flowed across the moon’s surface not long ago.” Too little methane, too late.

20 years after crashing in the Utah desert, NASA’s Genesis mission is still teaching us about solar wind (Space.com, 20 Jan 2025). It’s also the 20th anniversary of the Genesis mission that collected samples of the solar wind for 100 days, then crash landed in Utah (the samples, fortunately, were retrieved). What did they learn?

In terms of isotopic compositions of the most important volatile elements, oxygen and nitrogen isotopes in chondrite meteorites and inner solar system planetary materials, “we now know that the standard model is grossly wrong,” McKeegan reported late last year at the annual gathering of the American Geophysical Union.

Surprise discovery in alien planet’s atmosphere could upend decades of planet formation theory (Live Science, 18 Dec 2024). Did you catch that? Decades of theory upended. How about an apology for misleading the public in textbooks?

Old Moon with a Young Crust (Max Planck Institute, 18 Dec 2024). Theory rescue at work: the interior of the moon is billions of years old, but its surface is young. In other words, it’s yold.

A ‘remelting’ of lunar surface adds a wrinkle to mystery of Moon’s true age (UC Santa Cruz, 18 Dec 2024). Now we learn why it’s yold: “Volcanic activity may have reset geological clock of samples used to measure Moon’s age.” You can’t always trust your eyes or radiometric dating results. Scientists know the moon is old, even if it looks young. Theory demands an old moon! Deep Time, the Law of the Misdeeds and Perversions, cannot be revoked.

In summary, everyone should understand the difference between observations and theories. No sensible person would reject observations; it is the raw material of science. The ability of scientists to explain observations, though, is a vexed question and varies all over the map, from successful (universal gravitation) to ridiculous (e.g., inflation). Some philosophers of science deny that explanation is even the business of science. Consensus is not a good measure of reliability. The above examples show that widely held beliefs can be opposite the observable evidence. It’s time to elevate observation even if it means modifying or rejecting a popular theory or explanation.

I can’t remember a time with more tumult in astronomy. It ranges from planetary science to big bang theory. The confident days of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan are vanishing in the rear view mirror. “Everything you know is wrong” has been a common refrain in paleoanthropology. Now, astronomers and cosmologists are singing along with ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic,

Everything you know is wrong
Black is white, up is down and short is long
And everything you thought was just so important doesn’t matter
Everything you know is wrong
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong.

If you start with God’s word, by contrast, everything you learn is right. “For the word of the Lord is right, and all His work is done in truth” (Psalm 33:4). We have cautioned before about building one’s theology on current scientific consensus. Now we need to shout it. Trust the Eyewitness who made it all, not the “expert voices” that keep having to face observations that challenge, upend and undermine what they have taught us for decades. Are you listening, Christians in science who build your theology on big bang theory?

After this list of colossal failures, it would behoove our expert astronomers to learn some humility. Let them heed the words of Agur in Proverbs 30 and cry out to God:

The man declares, I am weary, O God;
I am weary, O God, and worn out.
Surely I am too stupid to be a man.
I have not the understanding of a man.
I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son’s name?
Surely you know!

The source of wisdom and understanding is given in the next line:

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Find his son’s name in John 1.