Resolves if the images taken by the JWST discover abundant evidence that the Big Bang theory for how the universe started is wrong. Data collected by the telescope in the first few months of operation seems to be indicating exactly that, but it is a controversial issue that will require a lot of astronomers to let go of their biases and embrace a new paradigm. For a summary of the data JWST has already produced that directly undermine the Big Bang see [this article by Eric Lerner](https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215).
Aug 15, 1:55pm:
Related questions
Getting out of this market because of uncertainty about resolution criteria. I'm <<6% that mainstream astronomers will think this has happened but >~6% that @BTE will resolve Yes if the evidence cited by Lerner is similar in higher volume in one year.
@LivInTheLookingGlass Inflation is a distinct (and less-established) hypothesis than the Big Bang. Actually, inflation happened before the Big Bang if it happened at all.
"Big Bang" in current usage (and the Lerner article) refers to the universe expanding in a decelerating, matter-and-radiation-dominated phase, starting from a much smaller and hotter universe. It does not include hypothesized early inflation or late-time dark-energy-driven growth, both of which are accelerating (exponential) growth.
This is what mainstream physicists and Eric Lerner mean by "Big Bang", so hopefully it's what @BTE means.
I think it would be wise to explicitly clarify how this market resolves if big bang cosmology falls out of favor for non-JWST reasons. I think, conditional on "the big bang being disproven", the relevant evidence is overwhelmingly likely to be dominated by other experiments, so this is an important case to have pre-committed criteria for resolution.
@ScottLawrence I totally agree. I am thinking about this and will update criteria. Maybe "disprove" is the wrong word, because as you say, it would require other experiments to do that. Open to suggestions...
@BTE Cosmology is pretty far afield (ha, ha) for me, but I think our understanding of galactic evolution is exceptionally poor. I don't see how yet another "and here's a thing that can't easily be explained" is really going to move any needles. Thus I'm afraid JWST is extremely unlikely be instrumental in raising a serious competitor to big bang cosmology.
At the same time, evidence from JWST will always be one thing that is cited (because you always cite all potentially relevant evidence to make the strongest possible argument), and as a result resolution is either going to be trivially NO (because the consensus remains that the big bang is the best we've got), or hotly contested (because the big bang is over, but I'm over here shouting that JWST wasn't that important and also get off my lawn you damn kids).
This is why I've posted so few physics forecasting markets: coming up with a question that is both broadly interesting and unambiguously resolvable is hard. It's harder in physics than in other fields, because all the most interesting questions necessarily involve assumptions going kaput, and if one of those assumptions was involved in writing the question, then there's trouble. Even of the few I've posted, there are a couple that I can easily see turning nastily ambiguous.
This question might be improved by getting rid of the JWST bit. Then it's just a question about "will big bang be consensus on such-and-such date". Maybe also clarify exactly what feature of modern cosmology you're referring to by the phrase "big bang". If you mean, for instance, an absolute start time, then I'm tempted to argue that it isn't meaningfully consensus now. (Although I'd have to consult my cosmology friends before spouting off too much on the internet.)
Interesting. I don't know enough about astrophysics to judge if the article linked in the description is mainstream or fringe. There are a few things the author mentions I'd like to see more info on (e.g he proposes that in a non-expanding universe, the redshift is proportional to distance - why would that be, exactly?).
@MattP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light for the theory of "redshift proportional to distance". It's necessary to explain why farther galaxies are redshifted more than nearer galaxies - the expanding universe/Big Bang theory explains that they're more redshifted because they're moving away from us faster.
Tired light and non-expansion is currently fringe, I believe. But that could change.
@MattP The author of the article is also the author of a book titled The Big Bang Never Happened. It endorses "plasma cosmology" which is considered quite fringe by mainstream cosmologists at this point (speaking as a physics PhD).
He has a BA in physics and was in grad school in physics for 1 year before leaving, and now works as a popular science writer and runs a fusion energy startup. I don't see any sign of mainstream physicists or physics institutions endorsing any of his work.
Per Wikipedia "Lerner's ideas have been rejected by mainstream physicists" and "Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it.[24][26][27][28][29][30]".
I don't have a horse in this game but I do think it's an interesting possibility. I think most people suffer from status quo bias and believe that today's paradigm of physics can't possibly be overturned, but it's very possible that we may be entirely wrong, just as we have been in the past! The history of physics (and science generally) features a series of paradigm-shattering discoveries. Who's to say that we're past that?
@BTE To be clear I have no intention of resolving this in the near term. It will take at least a year's worth of data before this can be seriously evaluated.
@BTE In 1 year, if there is coverage from sources similar to the Lerner article, making similar claims but a bit stronger, on the basis of a year of JWST data, will you resolve YES?