New James Webb Data Suggests The"Big Bang" Never Happened, According To Some
New James Webb Data Suggests The"Big Bang" Never Happened, According To Some
New images from the James Webb Space telescope (JWST) are creating quite a rift among astronomers and cosmologists as they challenge what the early days of our universe really looked like. It's one of many examples of how, as a collective, we've accept theories and beliefs as absolute unquestionable truth, when in reality there is much to be curious about.
This is a common theme throughout history, change is constant in science. In 1900, for example, physicist Lord Kelvin said there's nothing new to be discovered in physics & all that remains is more precise measurement. Einstein then published his paper on special relativity & forced scientists to open up to a broader view of reality.
This may be happening again as the James Webb telescope is revealing far more than what we learned from the Hubble telescope. In the two weeks since Webb’s first images and data became available, astronomers have reported many new discoveries, including multiple distant galaxies never before seen. These are galaxies we've never seen before as they were beyond the reach of other observatories (like Hubble), and they represent older galaxies that formed at a time closer to the supposed Big Bang event.
Astronomers characterize the distance of galaxies with a measure known as redshift, which quantifies how much a galaxy’s light has been shifted to redder wavelengths; the higher the redshift, the more distant the galaxy. Many of these new images show redshifts higher than ever seen before, which would place some of them approximately 250 million years before the Big Bang.
Furthermore, distant galaxies are also turning out to have more structure than astronomers had expected. One study of Webb’s first deep-field image found a surprisingly large number of distant galaxies that are shaped like disks. Using Hubble, astronomers had concluded that distant galaxies are more irregularly shaped than nearby ones.
But academics and experts in the field suggest all these new discoveries simply further disprove the Big Bang theory. Eric J. Lerner, President and Chief Scientist at LPP Fusion, who worked extensively with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory explains,
"To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
It's interesting to discover that many in the field do not accept the Big Bang theory as a plausible explanation of creation. Despite a large number of skeptics, much of the citizenry is simply taught and encouraged to accept the Big Bang as an absolute explanation, challenged only by religious theories around creation.
When one digs deep into these topics, it's not hard to see how much we don't know. Perhaps the lack an absolute truth almost forces humans to make up their own as sitting with the unknown can be uncomfortable. This is something we've seen happen many times throughout history.
The Big Bang singularity arises from the math of general relativity. But it's a problem because the math only explains what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. But quantum physics has and is changing our understanding and perceptions of general relativity.
We must remember that our universe, according to Einstein's theories, is around 13.8 billion years old and formed from an infinitely small point during the Big Bang (illustration pictured). While most people accept this model, again, scientists still can't explain what happened inside this tiny point - called a singularity – or what came before it.
The image below illustrates it quite well.
Eric J. Lerner continues,
"It is not too complicated to explain why these too small, too smooth, too old and too numerous galaxies are completely incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis. Let’s begin with “too small”. If the universe is expanding, a strange optical illusion must exist. Galaxies (or any other objects) in expanding space do not continue to look smaller and smaller with increasing distance. Beyond a certain point, they start looking larger and larger. (This is because their light is supposed to have left them when they were closer to us.) This is in sharp contrast to ordinary, non-expanding space, where objects look smaller in proportion to their distance.
Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, assuming that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.
Smaller and smaller is exactly what the JWST images show. Even galaxies with greater luminosity and mass than our own Milky Way galaxy appear in these images to be two to three times smaller than in similar images observed with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the new galaxies have redshifts which are also two to three times greater.
This is not at all what is expected with an expanding universe, but it is just exactly what I and my colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with redshift proportional to distance. Starting in 2014, we had already published results, based on HST images, that showed that galaxies with redshifts all the way up to 5 matched the expectations of non-expanding, ordinary space. So we were confident the JWST would show the same thing—which it already has, for galaxies having redshifts as high as 12. Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.
But from the standpoint of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis, these distant galaxies must be intrinsically extremely tiny to compensate for the hypothesized optical illusion—implausibly tiny. One galaxy noted in the papers, called GHz2, is far more luminous that the Milky Way, yet is calculated to be only 300 light years in radius—150 times smaller than the radius of our Milky Way. Its surface brightness—brightness per unit area-- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe. Its density (and that of several other galaxies in the new images) would be tens of thousands of times that of present-day galaxies."
In his article, Lerner goes on to to explain how tiny and smooth galaxies mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.
For years, scientists who factor in quantum principals have suggested that the universe may not even have beginning, if you can wrap your mind around that.
“As far as we can see, since different points in the universe never actually converged in the past, it did not have a beginning. It lasted forever. It will also not have an end…In other words, there is no singularity. The universe could have lasted forever."
Saurya Das, Professor of physics s at the University of Lethbridge
Lerner also goes on to explain how scientific dogma is dominating the field, and how "it has now become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals."
Before we go on, it's important to note that all contributions in science and theory are just that, meaningful contributions that bring us closer to knowing more. Sometimes these processes tell us what can't be or won't work even if they don't provide us a full answer. This is science, this is progress, this is what working together as a collective looks like especially if we can leave ego and incentives aside and simply stick to curiosity and wonder.
What About Non-Physical Elements of our Universe?
Nikola Tesla was very well aware of this substance/force at the turn of the 20th Century:
“All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha, or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena.”
– Nikola Tesla, Man’s Greatest Achievement, 1907
Many, like Tesla, have suggested that matter is birthed from the Aether, which may be mistaken as dark matter. Perhaps this is why we cannot get behind the singularity of the Big Bang theory, because we are looking for a physical spark to creation, when it could very well be something completely non physical and non material.
The words below come from the late Paramahamsa Tewari, who had a paper published in Physics Essays before he passed. The paper is entitled “Structural Relation Between The Vacuum Space and The Electron. You can access the full study here. He is also the inventor of the Reactionless Generator, or Space Powered Generator.
“A century from now, it will be well known that: the vacuum of space which fills the universe is itself the real substratum of the universe; vacuum in a circulating state becomes matter; the electron is the fundamental particle of matter and is a vortex of vacuum with a vacuum-less void at the center and it is dynamically stable; the speed of light relative to vacuum is the maximum speed that nature has provided and is an inherent property of the vacuum; vacuum is a subtle fluid unknown in material media; vacuum is mass-less, continuous, non viscous, and incompressible and is responsible for all the properties of matter; and that vacuum has always existed and will exist forever….Then scientists, engineers and philosophers will bend their heads in shame knowing that modern science ignored the vacuum in our chase to discover reality for more than a century.”
Parahamsa Tewari
I go into a deeper discussion and more detail about "Aether" in an article I previously published titled Earth, Water, Air & Fire: Why Is The Fifth Element (Aether) Completely Ignored? This topic brings spirituality and metaphysics into the question, and elements of our reality that can no longer be ignored when discussing the nature of our reality.
What About Consciousness?
When studying this non-physical world, consciousness comes into question.
In 2005, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University Richard Conn Henry published a paper in the journal Nature titled “The Mental Universe.” In it, he writes the following:
"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction….Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter… The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."
He writes this given the fact that consciousness seems to have a direct impact on what we perceive to be our physical material reality.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness."
Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
A paper published in Physics Essays explains how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality. It's one of many emphasizing the 'observer affect' mentioned by Henry above.
“Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it. . . . We compel [the electron] to assume a definite position. . . . We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.”
The other problem theoretical physicists are facing is that a vast majority of them are reluctant to acknowledge the role of consciousness in creation.The basic fact of existence is that whatever appears to exist, only exists from the point of view of the observer that observes it. If the observer doesn’t observe something, then nothing appears to exist from that particular point of view.
So where does physical material matter come from, and why does an invisible force like human consciousness effect it? With so much evidence showing that human consciousness is directly intertwined with our physical material reality, it further suggests that our own feelings, emotions, perceptions, and ‘state of consciousness’ is a a key factor when it comes to creating and shaping our human experience and perhaps creation itself.
At the end of the day, there is no black and white, and teaching the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory with many holes in it would be something quite irresponsible. For one to not demonstrate that the Big Bang theory is actually one of great debate with two sides, and not a one sided fact, is one who is not being completely accurate.
Personally, I believe there is only so much physical material reality can show us. In order for us to further our understanding, we must confront the non physical aspects that seem to make up most of our reality. It's fascinating that consciousness is so closely connected to physical reality. Does this suggest that there is consciousness behind creation? What came first, consciousness or creation?
Nikola Tesla is often attributed with saying, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” Many scientists, I would say the majority of scientists in this field all feel the same way, yet there is still a tremendous lack of attention paid to immaterial science in the mainstream academic world.