There are recent claims for observations of up to redshift 25 objects by JWST, which are said too early to be formed by standard Big Bang models, e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-james-webb-telescope-may-have-found-primordial-black-holes/

Probably even higher redshifts will be found in the future, so I wanted to ask if some objects like black holes could e.g. "pass in safe distance" surviving Big Bounce - now being observed as having extreme redshifts?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOowNVML4_I

Edited September 14Sep 14 by Duda Jarek

1 hour ago, Duda Jarek said:

There are recent claims for observations of up to redshift 25 objects by JWST, which are said too early to be formed by standard Big Bang models, e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-james-webb-telescope-may-have-found-primordial-black-holes/

Probably even higher redshifts will be found in the future, so I wanted to ask if some objects like black holes could e.g. "pass in safe distance" surviving Big Bounce - now being observed as having extreme redshifts?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOowNVML4_I

The questions are, are these objects at the Z value claimed? What are these objects? PBH? Population 3 stars? Early (earliest) galaxies or some other early objects? Could they be an artifact?

If an early object, how did it form so quickly?

BB Cosmology is silent on T=0 so big bounce and other cyclic models are not part of this discussion.

From memory, Penrose's proposed Hawking points for his CCC model were not well received but there are posters and mods on here who answer with far more expertise.

This is a question of minimal time required for formation of observable objects after Big Bang?
If observing earlier ones, wouldn't it mean they had to come from before T=0?

My point is that observing extreme Z could offer experimental way to distinguish Big Bang from Big Bounce, e.g. the latter might have no upper bound for Z.

What other experimental evidence could confirm there was nothing before?

26 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

This is a question of minimal time required for formation of observable objects after Big Bang?

z= 32 has been cited in one paper (I'll find this) Is this number correct? First and formost.

What is it? Models to explain it will come later I would have thought.

33 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

What other experimental evidence could confirm there was nothing before?

Have a look at Penrose "Hawking points" and his CCC model.

Primordial means they were formed in the hot, dense state shortly after the Big Bang event, not prior to it.
Quantum fluctuations in the pre-inflationary universe would have led to regions of extremely high energy density, which would have gravitationally collapsed to BHs after inflation.
The usual calculation involves upscaling from a quantum fluctuation with the inflation factor, and it predicts PBHs of fairly small size, prone to 'evaporation' by Hawking Radiation, and which may have evaporated by now.

Hoever, the possibility exists that as these PBHs formed during the hot dense plasma stage, they grew very large through accretion, and formed the 'seeds' that became eventual galaxies.
It is possible that some of the later formers, gobbled up their surrounding plasma too quickly, and were left 'bare', with no material to form galaxies around them, as the plasma, or eventual matter, had become much less dense.
These would obviously be much larger than stellar BHs, and would probably only be found away from galaxy clusters ( voids maybe ? ), and through Gravitational lensing.

Now, if you were to compress the ( observable ? ) universe back together, as suggested by "Big Bounce', everything would eventually be forced into a universal merged Black Hole, and we know of no mechanism which would allow for the 'bounce back' other than evaporation ( into where ? ), so I don't know how anything can 'survive' the collapse.
I don't think Penrose's Cyclic Cosmology allows for full collapse into BH state