New Science Says No Big Bang
Updated: Nov 3, 2019
A new quantum equation posits that the Big Bang never happened- that the universe actually has no beginning and no end. This might sound like truly groundbreaking science but it's actually a recycled old idea called "Steady State" theory which was proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle.
The details and evidence for the new quantum equation are light and there's not much chance it will overthrow Big Bang as the accepted cosmological model, but it is another thorn in Big Bang's side. As I've discussed in another article, Big Bang has lots of problems. In fact, just about every piece of observational evidence that we have discovered about our universe has required the theory to be rewritten in retrospect. These "patches" are not uniform- they require constantly changing variables to make the theory line up with observations. Dark energy and dark matter are two of the biggest fudge factors utilized to shore up the decrepit theory, but there are many others. Dark energy and matter are magical elements that have not, and cannot be observed but were theorized to exists simply because Big Bang cannot work without them. This is the problem with theoretical science- it operates outside of reality and simply conjures up fanciful possibilities, most of which cannot actually be tested or falsified. When a theory doesn't seem to explain real observational data, more imagination is used to create new and more complex mechanisms and variables to make the theory more viable. In the end, what happens is the theory becomes more convoluted rather than more plausible as Occam's Razor (the scientific truism that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is best) is tossed aside in favor of elaborate Rube Goldberg style theories. So if Big Bang is so riddled with holes, why won't this new (old) theory pose a threat to it? Quite simply, the modern scientific narrative is too heavily invested in the Big Bang to let it go. Big Bang is the foundation and the framework for all cosmological, geological and biological evolution. If that rug were ripped out from under them, scientists would have more egg on their face than they would care to attempt to recover from. Consider for a moment that because of Big Bang cosmology, we believe the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. All dates attributed to stars and planets have been calibrated to fit neatly into this timeline. All terrestrial radiometric geological dates have been calibrated to fit along this timeline. All biological evolutionary dates have likewise been calibrated to fit within this timeline. Now, the argument for naturalists all the while has been that hard scientific data has produced these dates, such as radiometric dating which they argue is foolproof and absolute. But if suddenly the cat is let out of the bag that Big Bang was nothing more than speculative fantasy, then the entire timeline which naturalists have constructed and presented as scientific canon falls apart. Everything would have to be reevaluated, recalibrated and redefined. If the universe is no longer 13.8 billion years old, then the earth's age of 4.5 billion years old is now in question and the domino effect goes on to wreak havoc on all calibrated biological evolution timelines and dates. Some may think this wouldn't be too different from other major scientific discoveries in history that have forced man to shift to completely new paradigms, but there is one significant difference- the scientific community itself. The hubris of modern science has portrayed itself as nearly inerrant. Modern naturalistic ideas are presented as scientific fact and those who dare question those ideas are ridiculed. So it would be a long and difficult road for many scientists to regain their credibility if such earth-shattering paradigm shifts happened today, which is why the status quo is staunchly maintained and new patches are constantly added to save their sacrosanct theories from extinction. So one might argue that modern naturalistic science is driven by pride rather than evidence- the same too-big-to-fail mentality that plagues our economic system can be seen on full display in our scientific system. The difference is that the public doesn't trust banks or Wall Street, but they do trust what they perceive as objective and evidence-based science. Due to this perception, scientists enjoy massive popularity and access to public and private funds to continue to propagate their theories. Their livelihoods and their reputation is at stake here, so rocking the boat is not advisable.
So will a new spin on Steady State rewrite the science textbooks? Doubtful. It's a theory that is destined for the little leagues where a few other cosmologies play ball because the big money is in the Big Bang. Special Note: Neither Big Bang nor Steady State variants are biblical. Steady State has many problems as well, so I am not suggesting it would be a superior replacement for Big Bang. For a cosmology that fits the obervable evidence very well, requires no fudge factors and happens to align with the biblical account , take a look at Cosmological Relativity by the famed Dr. Moshe Carmeli.