A new paper shows that the “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” can be explained entirely by the energy of recently discovered Early Mature Galaxies — massive galaxies that the JWST discovered which crushed the existing models of galaxy formation because they formed much earlier than astrophysicists thought possible.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04687

>>16712815 (OP)
doesn't this debunk 90% of modern astrophysics?

>China

>>16712820
it's data from the James Webb Space Telescope, not Chyna

>>16712821
fuck off, Chang

>>16712815 (OP)
Yea, our girl already did a video on it. Very funky shit indeed.

The universe still had a beginning though. If it was eternal, we already would have reached max entropy since eternal time, making us Boltzman Brains

>>16712907
In the steady state universe (which appears to be the correct model_, entropy does not increase globally. Only ever in local volumes of whatever size. There will never ever be a pocket of high entropy large enough that random fluctuations will dwarf out the brain-creation potential of ordered matter in lower-entropy configurations.

>>16712815 (OP)
The paper doesn't show that at all. It's also demonstrably wrong. If it were due to dusty galaxies the CMB could easily be resolved into individual star-forming galaxies by higher resolution telescopes. In the paper they calculate the Placnk space telescope had just 6 galaxies per resolution element in their model, so telescopes like SPT, LMT and ALMA, with much higher resolution would not see a background at all, but individual sources.
Not mentioned in the paper is the cosmic infrared background, which is a few percent as bright as the CMB. The CIB can be resolved into individual sources, it is the combined light of dusty star forming galaxies. Astronomers have already detected what they propose, it is nothing like the CMB.

> recently discovered Early Mature Galaxies
Nope. The galaxies they invent are about 1000 times more massive than the galaxies seen by JWST. They are just bullshitting.

They have no explanation for the detailed fluctuations and blackbody spectrum, which just happen to match big bang predictions.

>>16712821
There is exactly zero JWST data in the paper.

>>16712922
Steady state was ruled out long ago by the fact that there are many more distant quasars than local ones. JWST also sees evidence of galaxy evolution, incompatible with the steady state hypothesis.

>>16712816
>doesn't this debunk 90% of modern astrophysics?
It's BS at all, you cannot see historic radiations. when you come from the emission point and your journey is caused by expansion. There are many more impossibilities but it's useless to state even this in a forum to dumb to imagine that simple fact.

>>16712929
>Steady state was ruled out long ago by the fact that there are many more distant quasars than local ones.
Would that not exactly proves a steady state one ? E.g.by simple fact that that distant universe has way more volume than local area?

>>16713014
>Would that not exactly proves a steady state one ? E.g.by simple fact that that distant universe has way more volume than local area?
No, it's not explained by volume. It would only rise with r^2, but it's really much steeper than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

>when you come from the emission point and your journey is caused by expansion.
You are trying to attack a model you misunderstand on a very basic level. The volume of space that emitted the CMB we see is not here, it is the most distant part of the universe we can observe. The big bang was not a point, expansion happens everywhere.

>>16712815 (OP)
That's not what this paper claims at all. The conclusion is that early galaxies are a non-negligible source of contamination in the background data that needs to be accounted for in looking at the CMBR.

>>16713045
isn't that just the diplomatic way to ease yourself into the anus before you go for the kill blow?

>>16713331
Yes, it's like lubing up properly and carefully inserting your penis into the big bang model.

why wasn't this an alternative hypothesis to begin with? pop science too lazy to handle 2 possibilities?

>>16712907
>It is impossible to draw a line segment because if lines existed, you would already be at the end of the line before you tried to draw a segment.

>>16714552
The correct interpretation is that the line segment hss already been drawn.

>>16712926
OK, if they are wrong why don't you go write a paper and go collect your Nobel prize?

>>16713331
No. If it were correct the CMB could easily be resolved by higher resolution telescopes. That doesn't happen, so it is false.