A paper digging deep into new data from the James Webb Space Telescope has just flipped everything we thought we knew about early galaxies on its head
Just read about this and wondered if you had thoughts about how it fits (or not) with evolved universes;
Hi Julian! A question I’ve had about the Evolved Universe model but didn’t want to go back and comment on an old post: in this model, black holes in one universe are the big bangs of the offspring universes—more black holes, more offspring. Does this not imply that each of the offspring universes has less total mass, by a huge factor? At some point do you run into a mass limit as you divide up the available mass into more and more offspring? Or am I missing something?
Glad you’re so excited about the new data & providing us an interpretation for it!!! Usually, I would caution one to be wary of confirmation bias when reviewing new data, but in this case the data lines up well enough with the hypothesis given prior that it really qualifies more as a successful hypothesis test. I wouldn’t tell someone that predicted a rock would fall then dropped the rock that it was confirmation bias, now would I? Doesn’t rule out flaws in the original hypothesis of course, but I think this simply gives more room for refinement than anything!
I’m especially curious about fixed mass limitations and what we may learn in that direction. Going by pure intuition here, I imagine each child universe will have some small fraction of the mass available to the parent universe, which would lead to exponentially larger structures going up and exponentially smaller structures going down. Would these early-universe-structures tell us otherwise? We’re seeing unfathomably massive amounts of rotational energy: could that be passed on in substantial enough volumes that the amount of mass needed to populate a universe is negligible?
(My bad if this was already discussed; I’m reading random articles as I go.)