Why This Book?
When NASA released the first full-colour high-resolution images of distant galaxies taken by its James Webb Space Telescope, there was a problem. The JWST had been launched into space to detect objects that were too distant or too faint to be picked up by its predecessor the Hubble Space Telescope. The problem wasn’t that the pics didn’t show the galaxies in their best ‘14-billion-year-old’ light; the problem was that the pictures revealed surprisingly mature galaxies, a result completely at odds with predictions that these would be young galaxies. “These objects are way more massive than anyone expected,” said Joel Leja, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State. “We expected only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.”1 Scientists were expecting an album of baby photos but to their surprise, they ended up with a gallery of seniors.
Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in tension with 99% of models of how the universe began. “It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science,” said Leja. “It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.”1
Those big glamorous galaxies from the edge of the universe smiling back at the $10 billion-dollar space camera left astrophysicists lying awake at night asking themselves if everything they’d believed was wrong. This book answers that question.
Scientists had reasoned that the light from distant galaxies had taken close to 14 billion years to reach us, so we should be seeing the galaxies as they were almost 14 billion years ago, shortly after the hypothesized start of the universe, called the Big Bang. But the pictures were telling a different story, the galaxies looked like they had already evolved over billions of years and certainly didn’t fit an expected age of a few hundred million years. Could the Big Bang model be wrong?
To understand the Big Bang, we must go all the way back to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. It was his general theory of relativity that set modern cosmology up for disappointment. General relativity provided the mathematics for the idea that the universe is expanding. Rewind the video of an expanding space back to the start, and you come across the idea that entire universe was contained in a single point of infinite temperature and zero size. This point, we are told, rapidly expanded to become three-dimensional space, packed with energy. The energy then cooled, allowing the formation of matter, which condensed into stars and galaxies. This picture of the way the universe began is also called the ‘standard’ model because it is the model that most people who study the universe have accepted.
The scientific study of the universe is called cosmology. Now lean in a little closer as I whisper something important that is rarely talked about, ‘Cosmology is in a crisis’. A growing stack of evidence from new observations deep into space tell us that the standard model is wrong. It’s not just recent data from JWST that’s a problem, there is a long history of huge discrepancies between outcomes predicted by the standard model and actual observations.2 As we shall discover, over the past century these discrepancies have either been ignored or plastered over with clever justifications. When we dig a little deeper, we find that the standard model of cosmology is profoundly and fundamentally flawed.
Is it all Einstein’s fault? Afterall, Einstein’s general theory is touted as our best explanation of gravity and is accepted around the world almost without question. General relativity is claimed to have been verified by numerous experiments over many decades. It’s thanks to general relativity that the standard model sits in the most comfortable seat by the fire with its feet up. Thanks to general relativity, the standard model has de facto control of academic journals, the academic press, and schools and universities. It is the go-to viewpoint of the mainstream media. But this book will show that general relativity and the standard model are living on borrowed time.
We trace the history of general relativity to work out where it came from, what it is and where it went wrong. Einstein’s general theory was actually the product of an earlier theory, called the special theory. This earlier theory provided an initial shift in thinking away from the traditional notion that viewed space and time as the same for everyone, everywhere, towards a belief that space and time can be different for each person, depending on how they are moving through it. This book uncovers fundamental flaws in both the special and general theories of relativity.
By looking at the history, we can see how ideas that eventually gave rise to Einstein’s theories were developed. The aim here is to explain the physics in ordinary language without recourse to complex mathematics. It’s the physics and what the mathematics represents in the real world that is important here. You shouldn’t need a degree in physics to understand the concepts. Einstein’s special theory is actually quite straightforward and the framework of his general theory can also be grasped without too much stretching of the grey matter.
With an understanding of the physics, we can examine the problems. To debunk some of the most highly esteemed scientific theories is going to take a very compelling argument. But that is what this book provides.
Where do the arguments against relativity come from? Several lines of thought from highly respected sources are uncovered to refute relativity. The first is an idea published by Einstein himself, which offers an intriguing, intuitive alternative that fits all the measured data. This idea was substantiated years later with published research from an ‘Albert Einstein Professor in Science’ at Princeton University, one of the brightest yet least known theoretical physicists of the twentieth century. A second line of thinking comes from the arguments put forward by a British professor at Imperial College London, who was also president of the Royal Astronomical Society. His arguments use logic to show that special relativity is inconsistent with its own basic rules. Thirdly, surprising evidence is uncovered to show that the experiments claimed to ‘prove’ both the special and general theories of relativity are not anywhere near as decisive or clear-cut as presumed, being riddled with methodological errors, contestable results and poorly drawn conclusions.
When relativity is eventually superseded, it will bring upheaval to many fields of science, not just in cosmology but in particle physics as well. The description of fundamental particles and their interactions, known as Quantum Mechanics, although not the focus of this book, has clashed with general relativity for more than a century. Spoiler alert: the history of science tells us that ultimately neither one of these theories will triumph. Having said that, a small but growing group of scientists believe that it is time for general relativity and its modus operandi spacetime, to be overthrown.
It's not hard to find people who reject relativity, often labelled ‘cranks’ for their efforts by more mainstream scientists. But most of these dissident voices seem to want to advance their own pet theories. This book is different. There are no Eureka-moment ideas of my own to promote. Instead, the content of this book draws on the insights of experts with proven track records from a range of disciplines, including Einstein himself, to uncover the relevant and surprisingly simple alternative.
Evidence that challenges the foundations of modern physics is not always welcomed with open arms by mainstream physicists. There are often too many reputations and careers at stake, not to mention research funding, to tolerate opposition. Contradictory evidence is therefore ignored, denounced or censored. As with other industries, mainstream physics has thus not always followed a path of investigation unclouded by proprietary interest or personal or political motive. Unfortunately this reality is a recurring theme of this book. It’s evident that the scientific establishment is just as prone to discourage open debate and silence dissident voices as any other human endeavour.
The path of genuine scientific enquiry is supposed to be about asking difficult questions and seeking honest answers. Science that cannot be questioned is not science at all; it is dogma. For science to progress it is crucial to carefully cross-examine established theories and engage in ongoing debate. Those are the principles on which the arguments presented in this book stand.
The first four chapters outline the development of Einstein’s biggest ideas, describing them in their historical context. Evidence is presented to highlight the problems with relativity and show how the equations can be applied in a completely different context. Clarity on an alternative view emerges from this contrast. The next two chapters (5 and 6) give the background on how two significant discoveries by astronomers were linked to an outcome of general relativity, such that the three together formed the foundation of the standard model of cosmology in the twentieth century.
Chapter 7 focuses on the simple, logical argument that refutes special relativity, stemming from its famous paradox. The main proofs of special and general relativity are scrutinised in Chapters 8 and 9, along with the key evidence that has been put forward to refute them. The final chapter highlights the battle between those who cling tightly to the consensus scientific view and those who advocate for change. It describes how, in keeping the consensus view alive, the traditional scientific method has been sidelined in favour of a number of ad hoc, unprovable hypotheses.
History has shown that for those who have the courage to follow the evidence, it can be a confronting but very worthwhile journey.
