It has been a long time since astronomers discarded self-censorship and openly discussed that the Big Bang theory may be completely wrong.
The Big Bang Theory asserts that our universe was born in a colossal explosion 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang is one of the most “stubborn” dogmas in today’s science. Thousands of scientific papers, textbooks, and general articles have treated the Big Bang theory as if it were a proven fact.
A colorful view of the universe as seen through the Hubble Space Telescope. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
However, there are dissenting opinions. In an exclusive four-part interview in November 2020 with Asia Times titled “The Big Bang Never Happened”, renowned astrophysicist and plasma physicist Eric Lerner revealed how the Big Bang theory is contradicted by countless astronomical evidence—evidence that continues to accumulate, while mainstream astronomers strive to salvage the theory and discredit its critics.
On September 3, the New York Times published an essay by physicists Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser titled “The Story of Our Universe Might Be Coming into Focus”.
The authors argue that recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope, along with other astronomical evidence, contradict the so-called “standard model” of cosmology, and therefore they urge scientists to “rethink the key features of the origins and development of the universe”. They suggest that a “conceptual revolution” may be necessary.
Physicists Frank and Gleiser are familiar to the public through their writings and media appearances, but until now, they have not been critics of the Big Bang theory. Strangely, despite the attention-grabbing title, the authors do not question the Big Bang itself but only question other claims related to the “standard model” that contradict practical observations.
However, it goes without saying that the Big Bang is the most essential feature of the “story of the universe” that mainstream cosmologists continue to tell us. Whether Frank and Gleiser intended or not, their essay provides further evidence that the Big Bang theory is becoming outdated.
When asked to comment on Frank and Gleiser’s essay, astrophysicist and plasma physicist Eric Lerner responded that a significant step towards a public, open debate about the value of the expanding Big Bang hypothesis occurred on September 3 with the article in the New York Times by Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser.
According to Lerner, researchers have been discussing the “cosmological crisis” (refuting the Big Bang hypothesis) for nearly 30 years, and it has gained significant attention in the media since 2019. But what is new and important is the acknowledgment by prominent cosmologists like Frank and Gleiser that new observations mean we might need a “radical departure from the standard model” of cosmology, a model that requires us to “change the way we think about cosmology, the fundamental components of the universe, and possibly even the nature of space and time.” In fact, these authors suggest that we may need a “new story about the universe.”
An illustration depicting the evolutionary hypothesis of the universe with the Big Bang.
What the authors do not explicitly state is that there is an “alternate story about the universe” widely debated among researchers: the story of a universe evolving without the Big Bang or the expansion of space.
This is a scientific hypothesis—sometimes referred to as “plasma cosmology”—developed by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén and expanded upon by many others, which posits that the phenomena we observe in the universe can be explained by the physical principles we observe in laboratory physics describing electromagnetic reactions, plasma, gravity, and nuclear fusion.
Lerner argues that there is no origin of the universe in time, no expansion, no dark matter or dark energy. On this basis, his team has published technical documents predicting precisely what the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will reveal, based on evidence against the Big Bang and in support of the hypothesis of a non-expanding universe without dark matter or dark energy.
“Is there anything in this that challenges the Big Bang itself?” Lerner questions, “Not even the slightest bit. If we understand the Big Bang to mean the idea that the universe began in a smooth, hot, dense state and then began to expand, leading to structural evolution, then no, the Big Bang has not been refuted. After all, it has proven the most fundamental characteristic of the theory: cosmic evolution. The results from the James Webb Telescope reinforce the idea that the universe indeed has a story and, most importantly, in some way, we are learning how to tell that story.”
The Reason Scientists Hesitate to Critique the Big Bang
So why doesn’t researcher Frank explicitly state that the Big Bang may never have happened, that the universe may not be expanding, and that the story of its evolution may be a story with no beginning?
Part of the problem is that Big Bang cosmologists not only have to abandon a theory they have repeatedly stated is beyond doubt; they also have to abandon the methods they are using, and Frank and Gleiser seem unwilling to do so. They write: “Cosmology is not like other sciences.”
“The predictions of the Big Bang theory have been clearly wrong for decades,” Lerner states.
But according to physicist Lerner, there is really only one scientific method, and it applies to cosmology as it does to the rest of science. This method begins with observation, makes generalizations from these observations (i.e., hypotheses), and then tests these generalizations by making predictions about unobserved phenomena—quantitative, precise predictions about the future.
Lerner argues that the predictions of the Big Bang have been clearly wrong for decades. Yet rather than abandon this theory, cosmologists have modified it numerous times, as Frank and Gleiser have accurately pointed out, to fit what has been observed and to resolve previous contradictions.
This astrophysicist also notes that a highly centralized structure for funding cosmological research and intense competition for such funds ensure that if someone writes that the Big Bang did not happen, or even just raises doubts about it, they will be considered “foolish or unfit for the job” and will not receive any funding.
In recent years, as more discrepancies have emerged between predictions and observations based on the Big Bang theory, publishing articles about specific contradictions with the Big Bang theory has gradually become more accepted, but they have never claimed that the entire Big Bang theory is wrong.
The two researchers Frank and Gleiser have taken it a step further by writing that we may need a completely new “story about the universe.”
Free and open debate is essential for achieving scientific truth. It has been a long time since astronomers have discarded this self-censorship and openly discussed that the Big Bang/expanding universe theory may be completely flawed.
