The new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) photographs of the cosmos are stunningly breathtaking to everyone who views them. But they also come as a huge surprise to the majority of cosmologists and professional astronomers because they defy theory in every way. Since July 12, a deluge of technical astronomical publications have been released online. In these papers, the authors repeatedly note that the photos reveal a very large number of galaxies, as well as galaxies that are unusually smooth, small, and old. There are many surprises, not all of them good. One paper's title starts off with the direct cry of "Panic!" Why do cosmologists become alarmed by the JWST images? And whose predictions do they conflict with? Actually, the papers don't say. The reality is that these studies do not include the theory that the JWST's There has been unhappiness with the Standard Model, which starts with the Big Bang, ever since it was originally put forth by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago, despite the fact that we hardly heard of it. But none anticipated that the James Webb Space Telescope would weigh in on the discussion.
Despite being an interested person and the author of the 1992 book The Big Bang Never Happened, Lerner is not necessarily in error. He will participate in the discussion titled "Cosmology and the Big Bust" at the HowTheLightGetsIn event in London on September 17–18, 2022, which is organised by the Institute for Art and Ideas (IAI). The following is the premise of the next debate, which will also include philosopher of science Bjrn Ekeberg, Yale astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan, and Lerner: The "inflation" idea, according to which the cosmos first expanded at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light, is a key tenet of the Big Bang theory. However, investigations have been unable to demonstrate proof of cosmic inflation, and the hypothesis has been dogged by perplexing issues ever since it was first proposed. Paul Steinhardt, one of its founders, has now criticised the notion as being false and "scientifically worthless." Do we have to abandon the cosmic inflation theory in favour of a radical substitute? Could a different explanation, such as the Big Bounce or giving up on the speed of light, offer a solution? Or are these options just band-aids to prevent the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang entirely? Here's an argument So, yeah, it has been a contentious subject for some time. What are we to make of Eric Lerner's strategy now? Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon provided some ideas and a potential remedy to Mind Matters News: