It's been known for sometime now that there's been a significant tension between the Hubble constant as it is estimated based on SN1A data and the Hubble constant estimates based on Planck data sets. I had "assumed" that the mainstream would simply try to add yet *another* ad hoc metaphysical element to their LCDM model to deal with that problem (like early dark energy), but apparently the problem doesn't lend itself very well to a metaphysical 'fix".
It does however tend to be somewhat "easily" resolved by assuming that the local universe which we live in is about 50 percent less dense than the rest of the universe.
The problem however is that the moment one takes that path to resolve the Hubble constant tension, it becomes very clear that the need for "dark energy" can also be resolved in that same density variation process. In other words, the moment one starts tinkering around with local density, the need for dark energy evaporates instantly. They can "fix' the Hubble constant tension that way alright, but it immediately calls into question the need for dark energy at all. They can't really easily have their Hubble constant cake, without eating their dark energy too. That's quite a scientific dilemma. The 'right" thing to do would be to eliminate the tension and eliminate the need for dark energy at the same time, but that blows huge holes in virtually all other areas of the expansion model.
The other recent discovery that is hazardous to the health of the LCDM model is the discovery of cosmic anisotropy. Since even before inflation theory was posited by Guth, the universe was thought to be isotropic. In fact this was one of the primary 'selling features' of inflation theory, namely that it provided a mechanism to explain that isotropic layout of matter. Technically inflation theory isn't directly included in the LCDM model, but the LCDM model assumes an isotopic universe. This again is not "easily' resolved without introducing a host of other problems related to their current computer modeling. I'm sure with some creative manipulation they can modify enough initial parameters to explain an anisotropic universe, but it's going to require a whole lot of "fine tuning" to do so, which ultimately just makes the LCDM model look that much more "contrived". So much for claiming that the current (or even any future) expansion model has been good at making accurate 'predictions". In fact there wouldn't be much left in the way of any accurate predictions were they to go that route.
In addition to the recent problems with dark energy, the whole "dark matter' claim has also fallen on hard times. Many tens of billions of dollars have been spent looking for exotic matter, and trying to undermine the standard particle physics model, all to no avail. They've virtually eliminated all the known space for WIMPS to hide in, and axion concepts have had a dismal track record as well. Even more damning, the observational evidence is also blowing huge holes in the whole dark matter concept:
https://physicsworld.com/a/satellite-ga ... ter-model/
Not only has the dark matter concept been a dismal failure in the lab, it's also refuted by observational evidence of the last couple of years.
And it gets worse. Within the last five years we've also found massive and mature galaxies that simply defy the BB model.
https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007
https://www.icr.org/article/distant-gal ... mature-for
Not only are distant galaxies more massive than predicted by the LCDM model, but they're also far too "mature". They have too many heavy elements present, and they have distinct spiral patterns that ultimately should not have formed yet according to the LCDM model. This is a *serious* problem for any model which predicts galaxy evolution over time, namely *any* expansion model which assumes a 'bang" where matter as we know it was formed. There's no easy 'fix" for this issue either."These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on," said German researcher Sandra Savaglio, lead author of a related paper slated to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.1
A core Big Bang doctrine is that certain stars process lighter elements into heavy elements. The Big Bang supposedly only produced the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium. Astronomers speculate that after millions of years, hydrogen clouds condensed into stars. And then eons passed before those stars became mature enough to create the heavier elements, all of which astronomers call "metals." But stars never could have formed this way, and these new observations fly in the face of that doctrine.2
Instead of immature and lightweight galactic elements in these very distant galaxies, "the emerging picture is that the spread in metallicity is large at any redshift [distance]," according to the authors.3 The researchers analyzed the gamma-ray burst spectral lines, which showed that the galaxies through which the ray traveled contained more metals than the sun.
Distant galaxies appear just as mature as those near to earth, as though there was no relative time difference between the galaxies' formation. For example, very distant spiral galaxies—where stars are arranged in great, winding arms—appear to have undergone the same amount of spiral arm winding as closer ones. This is consistent with the idea that astronomical time runs, or used to run, at very different rates than earth time.4 It also matches the proposed idea that distant starlight takes no time to travel to earth.5
And that is but the tip of the iceberg. High redshift observations also reveal massive quasars which defy the LCDM model.
https://www.ibtimes.com/massive-quasars ... on-2537928
"No current theoretical models can explain the existence of these objects," Joseph Hennawi, who leads the team from the Max Planck Institute, said in the statement. "The discovery of these young objects challenges the existing theories of black hole formation and will require new models to better understand how black holes and galaxies formed."
If you recall from my conversations with Higgsy, he desperately tried separate the LCDM model from galaxy formation theories (and presumably quasar formation theories) because it's now quite clear that there is a *serious* problem with mainstream's prediction of galaxy evolution and quasar formation models. There simply is no evidence at all that is left standing that galaxies evolve over time, or that the distant universe looks any different than the local universe. Both the galaxy evolution concept and the quasar formation concept are utterly destroyed by recent (last three years) observations. There's essentially nothing left standing as it relates to either 'prediction".
It's irrational however to try to separate galaxy formation models from the LCDM model itself because without a "bang", there's no no real need to even "predict' the existence of galaxies at high redshifts which are metal poor, or lacking in spiral features. These are predictions that are directly related to the notion of an original "bang" which resulted in the formation of all elements on the periodic table, and which then requires a progression of complexity over time. A static universe model for instance requires no such predictions. The only reason that astronomers are keen to separate the LCDM model from galaxy formation models is to try to deflect attention away from the fact that the LCDM model has failed yet another series of important 'tests' of the expansion model.
When you add up all of those recent contradictions of the LCMD model, it really doesn't make any sense to try to "preserve" the concept of expansion as the cause of redshift. There's nothing really left to support that model to begin with. It might be different if galaxies showed a pattern of evolution over time, but they don't. It might be different if massive quasars didn't exist in the distant/early universe, but they do.
The "logical" thing to do now is to simply toss out the whole LCDM model and take a closer look at Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for redshift, namely tired light models. Such models do *not* defy the conservation of energy laws like 'space expansion' models. They don't require the distant universe to look radically different from our local universe either. Tired light models better jive with the recent observational evidence of the high redshift universe, and they resolve all the key problems in one fell swoop.
Now of course I don't expect that astronomers will immediately do an about face and embrace tired light explanations for redshift immediately, but the handwriting is definitely on the wall. They can prolong the inevitable for awhile, but JWST is going to reveal a distant universe that looks exactly like the local universe and it simply won't support the LCDM model. Assuming all goes well with the JWST program, that's all going to occur within the next three to five years.
The clock is definitely ticking on the LCDM model. It's showing it's age now, and it's falling apart at the seams. There's nothing particularly compelling about the LCDM model based on recent evidence, and it's only a matter of time before JWST images start to tear it apart.
A few years ago I was rather skeptical that I'd live to see the day when the LCDM model was replaced by EU/PC theory, but I'm becoming a lot more optimistic as time passes. The last three or four years have been *devastating* to the LCDM model in terms of what we're discovering about our universe. Our physical universe simply isn't conforming to the LCDM model, and there's a good reason why. We don't live in an expanding universe, we live in a static universe. We don't need metaphysics to explain what we observe in space, we simply need to abandon metaphysics entirely and return to the lab and return to empirical physical explanations.
There was nothing really "good" about the LCDM model in the first place, but recent observational evidence simply blows it out of the water. It's bad enough that it's based upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, but it's also in direct conflict with the evidence we see at high redshift, and in direct conflict with the laboratory tests for the last decade.
It may take another decade for astronomers to embrace reality, but eventually they'll have to do so. It's only a matter of time now, and the time of the LCDM model is very short. In fact it's already over, but nobody wants to admit it yet. JWST isn't going to be kind to the LCDM model and it's certainly not going to save it. It would be best for the mainstream to simply admit that the expansion model is woefully at odds with the distant universe, sooner rather than later. The longer this charade continues, the more damage they will do to their reputations. There's already *plenty* of evidence to show that the LCDM model is false, and plenty of evidence to suggest that now is the time to do something about it.
