The James Webb Telescope and Big Bang Doubts
Every time there is a leap forward in astronomical technology which permits us to get an even better view of distant parts of the universe, devotees of the orthodox Big Bang hypothesis start to get worried that the new information might shed some doubt upon their cherished belief. The recent photos from the James Webb telescope have reignited this possibility.
There is a lively debate on Medium. Ethan Siegel writes under the identity of ‘Starts With a Bang’ (!), and therefore has a big investment in the issue — in effect he will lose all credibility if proven wrong. He is quick to assure us that such ideas are nonsense. He begins his article ‘Has the JWST disproven the Big Bang?’, “No. No no no. Just… no. The JWST has truly blown our scientific minds, but it’s a pure crackpot idea that the Big Bang is now disproven”. Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?
Alastair Williams also seeks to assure us here that the James Webb hasn’t disproven the Big Bang theory. An obvious problem would arise if galaxies or stars were found that are older than the calculated age of the universe — currently about 13.7 billion years. The James Webb telescope seems to have provided such evidence. Williams seeks to reassure us, however: “Signs of impossibly old galaxies are best treated with caution — for now”.
On the other side of the debate, we have:
- Glenn Borchardt, who describes himself as a theoretical physicist who “has advanced Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement for the Big Bang Theory”. He has written an article called ‘Shocking News — Webb Confirms Infinite Universe Theory’, which begins: “At least since 2009 we have been remarking on the ‘elderly galaxies’ contradicting the Big Bang Theory. He clearly does not want to treat these new findings with the same caution as Alastair Williams.
- Andrew Zuo, who here also suggests that the Big Bang might not be real, based on the observations from James Webb. He says: “Some of the galaxies are redshifted in such a way that is inconsistent with the big bang theory. And secondly some of the galaxies are too big or small than what would be expected from the big bang”.
- Seeker After Truth (!), who here says that the findings of the James Webb telescope may prove Big Bang theory, described as “the holy grail of cosmologists”, wrong.
- John Brodix Merryman Jr. who wrote several articles predicting that James Webb would discover terminal problems for Big Bang theory, and since the release of the first photos has written here that he believes that the James Webb findings will eventually destroy the theory completely.
(EDIT Since publishing the article, Fred Rick has asked to be included in this list of Medium writers who dispute the Big Bang. He favours a Big Whisper model, see here and here.)
It’s worth noting that both sides of the argument are looking at exactly the same photos, and the same evidence, so it’s reasonable to suggest that cognitive bias must be operating somewhere in this debate. Something similar happened in 1992, when the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) provided the most accurate observations up to that point of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). Big Bang advocates claimed that the new evidence offered conclusive proof of the theory, while opponents claimed the opposite. (For more details, see this article.)
All this leads me to wonder why Big Bang theory is held on to so tenaciously. On the one hand, it appeals to physicalists, because it suggests that all the matter and energy that now exist pre-existed the known universe, albeit in a dense singularity, so that there is no need to appeal to anything other than this matter and energy to explain the universe. One could argue therefore that it is a secular creation myth.
On the other hand and somewhat paradoxically, some Christians also have enthusiastically accepted the Big Bang model, since it suggests a creation ex nihilo, which they believe agrees with the account in Genesis chapter 1. On Medium one such Christian is Gerald R. Baron. Another example would be a book called Developing a Christian Worldview of Science and Evolution by Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey.
I believe both these interpretations to be inaccurate. My own position is that I prefer spiritual explanations to the somewhat dubious conclusions of what passes for science in modern times. I think that the ancient sages had far more knowledge than they are given credit for. As I noted in a recent article, the quantum physicist Hans-Peter Durr once said that when he teaches quantum physics, he feels like he’s giving a lecture on Hinduism’s vedanta philosophy.
There is a remarkable consistency between various spiritual traditions, which agree that the material universe emerges from other levels of reality. The most obvious examples are: Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Kabbalism. Also worth mentioning is the idea of the Unus Mundus as conceived by Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli. This is also the position of Western esoteric secret societies, as claimed and described by Jonathan Black in The Secret History of the World, a highly significant book. It is also in agreement with the thinking of various modern physicists, especially David Bohm and Fred Alan Wolf.
I believe that such an idea is also contained in Genesis chapter 1, therefore that Christians who see there a confirmation of Big Bang theory have misunderstood the text. (They tend to see “Let there be light” as a reference to the ‘explosion’ of the Big Bang.) For a more esoteric interpretation of Genesis 1, from a Kabbalistic (mystical Jewish) perspective, see the second half of this article. I gave my own interpretation in detail in this article; what follows here is a summary.
The text opens: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep”. I’m inclined to paraphrase this as follows: “when the ultimate source brought into being the spiritual realm and the (possibility of the) material universe, the latter was completely empty, and essentially did not exist. At this point it was merely a potential”. This is confirmed at verse 9 where God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”. The ‘dry land’ is a symbol of the material universe, and this only happens after a process of establishing higher and lower waters separated by a ‘dome’. This suggests that the non-material realms exist in a hierarchy of levels. These pre-exist the emergence of the material universe. I therefore paraphrase verse 9 as, “let the realm of quantum potential, which is at a level below the spiritual realm, bring forth the material universe”.
“Let there be light” cannot therefore be considered tantamount to the ‘explosion’ of the Big Bang, since the material universe only emerged later in the Genesis account.
If there was indeed a Big Bang, I suggest that its advocates would have to find a way of making it compatible with such spiritual ideas. The material universe would seem to be a process of progressive densification (of spirit/ consciousness), not a sudden ‘explosion’.
==========================================================
I’ve just created a list of some of my previous articles expressing doubts about Big Bang theory.
The rejection of Big Bang theory may be part of a forthcoming reunification of science and religion, and what is called the new paradigm in science. As John Brodix Merryman Jr. said, in one of the articles mentioned above, “I’m sure many Big Bang theorists will go to their grave insisting it’s all proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. As the saying in science goes, ‘Change happens one funeral at a time’ ”.
============================================================
Further reading:
Has the Webb Telescope Disproved the Big Bang Theory? — Slashdot
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, politics and astrology. All of those articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here). My most recent articles, however, are only on Medium; for those please check out my lists.
