James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? wait…

Physicist Eric J. Lerner states:

For all who see them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the universe are stunning. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also very surprising—not at all what theory predicted. In a slew of technical astronomy papers published online since July 12, the authors report time and time again that the images show a surprising number of galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small, and surprisingly small. ancient. Lots of surprises, not necessarily pleasant ones. The title of a paper begins with a frank exclamation: “Panic!”

Why do JWST images panic cosmologists? What theory’s predictions do they contradict? The newspapers didn’t actually say that. What these papers don’t report is the fact that JWST’s picture blatantly and repeatedly contradicts the Big Bang hypothesis, that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state, and has since has been expanding. Since the hypothesis has been defended by the vast majority of cosmology theorists as unquestioned truth for decades, the new data is causing panic among theorists. “Right now, I find myself waking up at 3 a.m. and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong,” said astronomer Alison Kirkpatrick of the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

Eric J. Lerner“The Big Bang Didn’t Happen” in IAI.TV (August 11, 2022)

While we don’t usually hear about it, people have been dissatisfied with the Standard Model since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître nearly a century ago, and it started with the Big Bang. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to this debate.

Now, Lerner is the author of a book called The Big Bang Never Happened (1992) But – while that made him an interested party – it didn’t make him wrong. As a participant in the ‘Cosmology and the Great Depression’ debate, he will speak at HowTheLightGetsIn London (17-18 September 2022), sponsored by the Institute for Arts and Ideas (IAI).

The upcoming debate, consisting of philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg and Yale astrophysicists Priyamvada Natarajan and Lerner, is based on the following premise:

The big bang theory relies primarily on the “inflation” hypothesis, that in the beginning the universe was expanding many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation, and the theory has been plagued by deep mysteries since its inception. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt denounced the theory as false and “scientifically meaningless”.

Do we have to abandon the theory of cosmic inflation and seek radical alternatives? Could alternative theories such as the Great Bounce or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are these alternatives simply to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to abandon the Big Bang altogether?

Here’s a debate on this general topic at last year’s festival (but no JWST data). It features theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in math: How beauty leads physics astray, With Ekeberg and particle physicist Sam Henry.

So yes, this has been a serious topic of discussion for some time now. Now, what do you think of Eric Lerner’s approach?Courtesy of experimental physicist Rob Sheldon Heart News Some ideas and potential solutions:

Current thinking is that the era of Big Bang nucleosynthesis produced 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (by weight) and a small amount of lithium, but that’s about it. Then 300,000 years later, the universe cooled enough to produce atoms, and gravity slowly pulled, slowly forming stars. The early ones were big enough to explode, and the shockwaves emitted by the hydrogen gas caused pockets to form, and star-making began in earnest. But it still takes 500 million years to get enough stars for a galaxy. Now, the sooner a galaxy formed, the earlier it was, and the further away it was from today’s astronomers, the further away it was from us, the faster it moved away from us. This motion causes the light to be redshifted. This relationship is so strong that astronomers replaced “time” with “redshift”. But the Hubble Space Telescope can only see visible light, and those early galaxies were so redshifted that they were only “visible” in the infrared, which is where the James Webb Telescope shines. So one of the goals of the James Webb Telescope was to see the earliest galaxies, and in fact, they saw a lot.

So what does this mean for the Standard Model?

Theorists have an answer. A large amount of lumpy dark matter causes hydrogen to accumulate early. This begs the question, “Why isn’t dark matter lumpy now?”

I don’t have the stamina to run through every rabbit trail proposed by a cosmologist. Instead, I suggest that the first stars were not made of hydrogen, they were made of ice. The big bang synthesized abundant C and O, which combined with H to form H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. These gases freeze relatively early in the cosmic time frame, so the clumping is not gravitational but physicochemical, as snowflakes form. So we don’t have to wait 500 million years for snowflakes to clump together, which will happen very quickly once the universe cools below freezing. As a result, James Webb saw many redshifted galaxies from the early universe.

The paper on that (maybe a prediction of what James Webb will find?) is in my open access paper Bryce College Newsletter 2021.

Here is one possible solution. We know it’s science when it always presents a challenge.

This sometimes arises: Will the universe ever exist? The problem is that if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, then everything that could have happened must have happened an infinite number of times — including that we didn’t and never existed. But we know we do exist. As Robert J. Marks pointed out, playing with infinity can quickly lead to absurdity. To do science, we must accept that some events are true and not contradictory. So we can assume the universe started, but we’re not quite sure how it happened right now.


You may also want to read: Have physicists opened the door to additional time dimensions, as claimed? That’s how Scientific American’s story is read. But experimental physicist Rob Sheldon says not so fast… Physicists, while building “time crystals,” happened to discover an error-correcting technique for quantum computers. The rest is a story we all wish we were in.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.