<p>No. It hasn't.</p>
<p>There aren't any galaxies that formed before the big bang.</p>
<p>The most ancient galaxy yet observed by JWST is at a redshift of 13.2 (equivalent to a light travel time of 13.4 billion years) and formed 300 million years after the Big Bang. The JWST has not observed galaxies at a distance of 13.8 billion years (in terms of light travel).</p>
<p>Our understanding of how galaxies formed in the early universe is developing, and some of the observations are challenging to model.  But nothing in these observations fundamentally contradicts the notion of a hot dense state for the early universe. And there is very much in these observations to support the &quot;big bang theory&quot;. For example the observations of partially ionized gas, indicating that the universe was developing from a state of un-ionized gas to plasma that is ionized by radiation from quasars, is further strong evidence that the universe was <em>different</em> back then. This is direct observation of the consequences of a big bang.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T21:41:56.480Z
These Galaxies, recently discovered by the Space Telescope, near the edge of the Universe showed that they were formed before the Big Bang . Also a Star was discovered that is older than the Universe .
Peter U
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T21:43:35.053Z
No. that didn't happen.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T22:01:07.597Z
The Methuselah Star is one Billion years older than the Universe . Even our MIlky Way Galaxy is as old as the Universe and perhaps even older.
Peter U
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T22:20:29.587Z
@PeterU HD140283 is $12\pm 0.5$ billion years old (Tang & Meredith 2021, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..117T/abstract).
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T23:50:31.500Z
@ProfRob This still doesn't explain the Galaxies that the Space Telescope just recently discovered at the edge of the Universe. These Galaxies out at a distance of 13.8 Billion light years and are already fully formed at the supposed beginning of the Universe ?
Peter U
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T00:26:13.077Z
The most ancient galaxy yet observed by JWST is at a redshift of 13.2 (equivalent to a light travel time of 13.4 billion years) and formed 300 million years *after* the big bang.  The JWST has not observed galaxies at a distance of 13.8 billion years (in terms of light travel).
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T07:03:49.263Z
@PeterU  Please provide a reference for where you have read that JWST has observed galaxies at or greater than 13.8 billion light years away. It is possible you have been confused over the various ways distances can be reported in cosmology.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T15:14:04.760Z
@ProfRob I got this information from a YouTube video that I watched concerning what the Space telescope has observed. I see that the Big Bang theory has strong support here but is it not true that not every Scientist is convinced that there was a Big Bang ? There are other theories , such as that the Universe has always existed .
Peter U
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T15:55:15.600Z
@PeterU give the reference/link **in your question**. And, if a YouTube link, give the time for the relevant statements you claim are made.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T16:23:05.227Z
@PeterU  The background story is is https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-science-denial  But the long story short - **No, the JWST observations do not disprove the big bang***.  While it is scientist's job to doubt and come up with alternatives, no other theory/model/hypotheis has yet been found that fits the observations as well as the big bang theory, and no mainstream scientists doubt that in the distant past, the universe was hot and dense.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T20:06:46.767Z
I have noticed that there is a lot of "click bait" on YouTube , false headlines to lure you into watching the video. That's probably what happened here.
Peter U
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T20:13:07.290Z
If you think this response has answered your question or solved your problem, the consider marking it as "accepted".
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T21:21:23.490Z
2023-09-17T00:28:29.910Z
2023-09-17T00:28:29.910Z
James K
<p>Methuselah Star is estimated at 14.4 billion years old.
And still can't be proven to be younger then the big bang light we pick up?
Which makes no sense because how are we picking up light from the beginning of the universe. It should have gone out already.
As far as I'm concerned there picking up something different and calling it what they want because they can't prove its what they say. Because unless you go there in person and witness the area without time distortions thanks to space, we won't know without seeing it in real time.
And it wouldn't be the first time people invented data from things they don't understand to be right, all you gotta do is slap a label on it and some data and convince people your right.
So I'll believe it when I see it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-30T07:33:27.413Z
No references? Here's one https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..117T/abstract  "And it wouldn't be the first time people invented data from things they don't understand " how true, but not in the way you intended.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-30T00:11:49.047Z
2024-11-30T00:11:49.047Z
Michael Douglas
<p>The Space telescope has detected some mature Galaxies close to the edge of the Universe. That means that they had formed more than 13.8 billion years ago . If the Big Bang occurred, then we would see those Galaxies  just  beginning to form now, instead of being fully developed already. The telescope looks back in time. So going by this the &quot;Big Bang&quot; never happened.</p>
<p>I for one wasn't surprised when I heard this news because the &quot;Big Bang&quot; theory, never really made sense to me.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T22:12:35.677Z
Please provide references for your statements about galaxies being observed that are greater than (a numerically precise) 13.8 billion years old.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T03:03:11.980Z
Please see [Seeming conflict between most distant objects and age of universe (both estimated)](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43974/16685) & links therein. Also note that there are a variety of cosmological [distance 
measures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measure).
PM 2Ring
<galaxy>
Has the "Big Bang" theory been disproven?
Peter U
# Has the "Big Bang" theory been disproven?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-09-16)

The Space telescope has detected some mature Galaxies close to the edge of the Universe. That means that they had formed more than 13.8 billion years ago . If the Big Bang occurred, then we would see those Galaxies just beginning to form now, instead of being fully developed already. The telescope looks back in time. So going by this the "Big Bang" never happened.

I for one wasn't surprised when I heard this news because the "Big Bang" theory, never really made sense to me.

**Tags:** galaxy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please provide references for your statements about galaxies being observed that are greater than (a numerically precise) 13.8 billion years old.  
> **username_2**: Please see [Seeming conflict between most distant objects and age of universe (both estimated)](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43974/16685) & links therein. Also note that there are a variety of cosmological [distance  measures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measure).  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-09-16. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

No. It hasn't.

There aren't any galaxies that formed before the big bang.

The most ancient galaxy yet observed by JWST is at a redshift of 13.2 (equivalent to a light travel time of 13.4 billion years) and formed 300 million years after the Big Bang. The JWST has not observed galaxies at a distance of 13.8 billion years (in terms of light travel).

Our understanding of how galaxies formed in the early universe is developing, and some of the observations are challenging to model. But nothing in these observations fundamentally contradicts the notion of a hot dense state for the early universe. And there is very much in these observations to support the "big bang theory". For example the observations of partially ionized gas, indicating that the universe was developing from a state of un-ionized gas to plasma that is ionized by radiation from quasars, is further strong evidence that the universe was *different* back then. This is direct observation of the consequences of a big bang.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: These Galaxies, recently discovered by the Space Telescope, near the edge of the Universe showed that they were formed before the Big Bang . Also a Star was discovered that is older than the Universe .  
> **username_3**: No. that didn't happen.  
> **username_0**: The Methuselah Star is one Billion years older than the Universe . Even our MIlky Way Galaxy is as old as the Universe and perhaps even older.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 HD140283 is $12\pm 0.5$ billion years old (Tang & Meredith 2021, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..117T/abstract).  
> **username_0**: @username_1 This still doesn't explain the Galaxies that the Space Telescope just recently discovered at the edge of the Universe. These Galaxies out at a distance of 13.8 Billion light years and are already fully formed at the supposed beginning of the Universe ?  
> **username_3**: The most ancient galaxy yet observed by JWST is at a redshift of 13.2 (equivalent to a light travel time of 13.4 billion years) and formed 300 million years *after* the big bang.  The JWST has not observed galaxies at a distance of 13.8 billion years (in terms of light travel).  
> **username_1**: @username_0  Please provide a reference for where you have read that JWST has observed galaxies at or greater than 13.8 billion light years away. It is possible you have been confused over the various ways distances can be reported in cosmology.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I got this information from a YouTube video that I watched concerning what the Space telescope has observed. I see that the Big Bang theory has strong support here but is it not true that not every Scientist is convinced that there was a Big Bang ? There are other theories , such as that the Universe has always existed .  
> **username_1**: @username_0 give the reference/link **in your question**. And, if a YouTube link, give the time for the relevant statements you claim are made.  
> **username_3**: @username_0  The background story is is https://www.space.com/username_3-webb-space-telescope-science-denial  But the long story short - **No, the JWST observations do not disprove the big bang***.  While it is scientist's job to doubt and come up with alternatives, no other theory/model/hypotheis has yet been found that fits the observations as well as the big bang theory, and no mainstream scientists doubt that in the distant past, the universe was hot and dense.  
> **username_0**: I have noticed that there is a lot of "click bait" on YouTube , false headlines to lure you into watching the video. That's probably what happened here.  
> **username_3**: If you think this response has answered your question or solved your problem, the consider marking it as "accepted".  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-11-30. Score: -1

Methuselah Star is estimated at 14.4 billion years old.
And still can't be proven to be younger then the big bang light we pick up?
Which makes no sense because how are we picking up light from the beginning of the universe. It should have gone out already.
As far as I'm concerned there picking up something different and calling it what they want because they can't prove its what they say. Because unless you go there in person and witness the area without time distortions thanks to space, we won't know without seeing it in real time.
And it wouldn't be the first time people invented data from things they don't understand to be right, all you gotta do is slap a label on it and some data and convince people your right.
So I'll believe it when I see it.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: No references? Here's one https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..117T/abstract  "And it wouldn't be the first time people invented data from things they don't understand " how true, but not in the way you intended.  

---

