New findings from the University of Bonn challenge the assumptions of the standard cosmological model.
The faint “afterglow” that fills the universe has long been one of the most important clues supporting the Big Bang theory. Known as cosmic microwave background radiation, this ancient light not only serves as a snapshot of the early universe, but also helps scientists understand how the very first galaxies came to be.
Now, a team of researchers from the Universities of Bonn, Prague, and Nanjing is challenging what we thought we knew. Their new calculations suggest that the strength of this background radiation may have been significantly overestimated. If their findings are confirmed, it could force scientists to rethink some of the most fundamental ideas in modern cosmology.
The results have now been published in the journal Nuclear Physics B.
According to the standard model of cosmology, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. In the moments that followed, space, time, and matter burst into existence and the universe expanded rapidly. During the first 380,000 years, it also cooled down enough for electrons and protons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms.
This milestone allowed light to travel freely through space for the first time, since photons were no longer constantly interacting with matter. That moment marked the birth of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the universe’s original light, still detectable today.
We can still detect this radiation today using highly sensitive telescopes. As it has been traveling to us for almost 13.8 billion years, it provides an insight into the birth and the first few hours of the existence of the universe.
“According to our calculations, however, it could be that this background radiation doesn’t exist at all,” explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa from the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague. “At the very least, we are convinced that its strength has been overestimated.”
A powerful star fire overlays the background radiation
The physicist, together with scientist Dr. Eda Gjergo from the University of Nanjing in China, has been investigating a particular group of galaxies called elliptical galaxies.
“The universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, like dough that is rising,” says Kroupa. “This means that the distance between galaxies is increasing constantly. We have measured how far apart elliptical galaxies are from one another today. “Using these data and taking into account the characteristics of this group of galaxies, we were then able to use the speed of expansion to determine when they first formed.”
It was previously already known that elliptical galaxies were the first galaxies that formed in the young universe. Vast volumes of gas accumulated to give rise to hundreds of billions of stars forming these galaxies.
“Our results now show that this entire process only lasted for a few hundred million years—which is relatively short on a cosmological time scale,” emphasizes Dr. Gjergo. “During this time, the nuclear reactions in these ignited stars were intensely luminous.”
Gjergo and Kroupa have calculated the power of this early star fire. They must have blazed so brightly that we are still able to detect them today.
“Our calculations indicate that some of the cosmic background radiation actually originates from the formation of the elliptical galaxies,” says Gjergo. “This accounts for at least 1.4% of the radiation but could even account for all of it.”
Unevenness leads to the creation of galaxies
Even if it accounts for just 1.4%, this would presumably have huge consequences for the standard model. Measurements carried out over the last few decades have shown that the background radiation is not completely uniform. Instead, there are very small differences in its intensity depending on the direction in which you look.
Researchers have interpreted this observation so far as proof that gas was not uniformly distributed after the Big Bang. Instead, it was slightly less dense in some areas than in others. This is also the reason why galaxies were able to form in the first place: The denser areas acted as condensation points where the gas was compressed under the force of its own gravity to form stars.
Without this uneven distribution of gas, we would probably not even exist. However, the variations in the background radiation that form the basis of this theory are only a few thousandths of a percentage point. The question now is how reliable these measurements can actually be if elliptical galaxies (which are also not uniformly distributed) account for at least 1.4% of the total measured radiation.
“Our results are a problem for the standard model of cosmology,” says Kroupa. “It might be necessary to rewrite the history of the universe, at least in part.”
Reference: “The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background” by Eda Gjergo and Pavel Kroupa, 6 May 2025, Nuclear Physics B.
DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116931
The research was partially funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the DAAD Eastern Europe Exchange Programme at Bonn and Charles Universities.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
84 Comments
Life originated from Africa, from ikembara community in ikeduru imo state Nigeria, a cosmetic prof according to the igbo cosmology with is the best cosmology all over the world. If we can have life in water 💧 organizem let use make a trace to see where we have the first river on earth 🌎. Which according to Bible study is where we have the Garden of Eden. Where water 💧 spring out to water the earth 🌎.. believe in me believe in the word of God believe in the bible and believe the existence started from Africa Nigeria, imo state, ikembara ikeduru local government area where we have the Origin of river Niger
What? Existence started in Nigeria in the Imo state in the government district? It is disconcerting how an article about the background radiation invites such a comment.
Just goes to show that everyone thinks they are the center of their version of the universe.
Keep reading comments on this platform. It can go from zero to Religion in a Planck second.
2 shakes of a lambs tail
Not surprising to me at all, mate. The borders between fantasy, speculation, reality and hope are very fluid.
I agree
Life originated on the back of a turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle which is standing on another turtle with turtles all the way down.
Touché (Turtle, qv). Pull your head in.
Actually, Life on Earth originated in the oceans; likely at numerous geographical locations, around the same time.
The origins of human life were most probably in Africa, but are equally indefinite.
We do know, however (from studies of mitochondrial DNA), that every person living today is ultimately descended from one woman.
Her remains were found on the mountainside of Titika in Ethiopia.
“Titika” means nipple, because of the protrubence at its peak. Thus I say “we have all been suckled by an African breast”.
Whatever “story” one wants to “believe”, all that really matters is the commonality of our humanity; that we cherish, safeguard and enrich it.
Idiotic and utterly incorrect understanding of Mitochondrial Eve who is completely theoretical (not an actual skeleton or fossil), and who would have lived somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago…
Genetic information – modern and archaic genomes – all agree on that the theoretical human last common mitochondrial ancestor is a mere part of the total coalescent tree of modern humans (or mitochondria, for that matter). We can’t yet tell if the African stem was structured or had ghost lineages, but the modern anatomy arose about 300,000 years ago (as evidenced by e.g. fossil finds in northwest Africa).
Biology itself split from geology in hydrothermal vents over an exothermic self-going Wood-Ljungdahl metabolic core [Weiss, M., Sousa, F., Mrnjavac, N. et al. The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor. Nat Microbiol 1, 16116 (2016)]. And as Mark notes it was a widespread phenomena, before the last universal common ancestor genetic code had evolved. We can see that in the recruitment order of amino acids which was based on size of disequilibrium transport property constraint into the half alive open cells instead of “warm little pond” equilibriums setting availability [S. Wehbi,A. Wheeler,B. Morel,N. Manepalli,B.Q. Minh,D.S. Lauretta,& J. Masel, Order of amino acid recruitment into the genetic code resolved by last universal common ancestor’s protein domains, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121 (52), (2024)].
This implies rampant horizontal transfer in a flattened fitness landscape analogous to some viral population quasispecies, until the sharp fitness peak of the robust genetic code evolved. This likely explain why we see no diversifying splits until then, and thereafter the modern rapidly diversifying evolutionary regime.
This is legit the most stupid comment I have ever read on a science page .
Can you show wheee is the universe your fake made up god exists ?
Neil. OK other than in the beginning God created…if that is not true U tell how this all got hear. And I will praise and worship U
Don’t tell me that it just appeared one day
Randy, just because we don’t know how ‘this all got hear [sic]’ doesn’t mean god did all this. Years ago we didn’t know how lightning worked, and we thought Zeus did it. Now we know, and Zeus is out of a job. Why should the presence of god depend on the state of our knowledge?
Besides, when you say god did all this, you are just adding a name to the unknown. You don’t solve the unknown. You still don’t know how god did all this and why he bothered to do all this. You still don’t know the nature of god.
Finally, suppose – for the sake of argument – a supernatural god did all this. What does that tell you what that god wants of you? Is this god the Christian god? Why? Bible in particular is blatantly ignorant of how the solar system works, let alone the universe. Bible is the word of someone who claims to have created all this, but is clearly lying about it.
Zeus didn’t lose his job… he’s union.
Sometimes we just need to have a laugh.
Beliefs and rituals,in two-way, telepathic communications, with nonentities in nonplaces, believing that, the nonentities in nonplaces real, has destroyed many ostensible, ” civilizations”, while the ignorance continues, to do so.
Thus,here a theoritical study is presented based on mathematics to disuss a case of probablity for standard cosmology,alone to occure at the early universe.
For early universe part,this study is auxililiary and not essential.CMB fluctuation study relative to standard model after 1 billion years of the big bang can be checked with this method of calculation for stars,in the context of supermasskve black hole and stars correlation.
Study of Dynamics,is also added to the modern part of,the standard cosmology,a basic outcome of Einstein’s General Relativity,root for gravitational lensing in other constexts.
God said “let there be light” and then there was a “big bang”…. science only gets you so far guys…
Science only gets you so far, but it does get you at least that far.
The God hypothesis goes places only in naive imagination. ‘God did it’ is not an explanation of anything because it doesn’t contain any details of the supposed event.
Yup
God should have said, “Let there be quark-gluon plasma.” Light didn’t appear until ~380,000 years later.
If you want to Believe everything you read, including your own penmanship: Begin with the Bible. Psalms 33:4 The Word of the Lord is Right, and ALL His Works Are Done In Truth. The second half of vs. 5, states…”the earth is full of the Goodness of the Lord. To continue further, the Scripture speaks of the Breath of God’s Mouth for ALL Creation. Which takes us now to the Beginning to, Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth. Point, Blank & Period. God’s Voice is such, it would burst our fragile human host. Maybe His Voice is the Big Bang, like Cosmic Thunder “Unfathomable,” to the human mind?” Only those who have wholehearted sought, seek & will seek God, will Hear God’s Voice as only we are able to, be able to…hear His Voice. The Universe is infinite. How arrogant to think we can pinpoint where the center is, let alone, where it originates from, as well as, carry a Human-centric view of God & bring the Utmost Highest, the Creator of All things, for whatever form of our understanding…or not.
“If you want to Believe everything you read…”
… then you should read very little, since otherwise you will find contradictory information in various texts that will be impossible to reconcile.
AMEN!!!
If God created the “Laws” of Physics and Chemistry, how can discount them? Surely they are the only way to know the ineffable.
Since 2016 it is known robustly and beyond reasonable doubt that it the entirely natural cosmological space expansion process that produces the universe (as described by a scale factor, “Scale factor (cosmology)”, Wikipedia).
Hence it was science and specifically the “big bang” process that got us over organized superstitious notions of magic.
Typo: “that it the” = that it is the.
I’m still thinking about God saying,
“Let there be light”
And then the big bang turns him into
antimatter.
The whole God thing is ridiculous to me.
I guess some people just HAVE to believe
in something, I believe in science and like
everyone else, I would like to know what it was before the big bang.
Belief vs science makes no sense. Science is discerning a hypothesis based on evidence from experiment and observation. Belief is a choice based on culture and often (but not always) ignorance. Raising an argument that science , especially astrophysics is challenged by a bible published when only myth and passed down stories existed shows only that you don’t understand science and have a Christian barrow to push.
LMAO. No mate . The bible and your fake god that you can’t prove explains nothing . Were women made from ribs bruh?🤣🤣🤣
Good job Mike,,,U R saying GOD is the creator and sustainer of the universe..
Randy, look for the truth, not a fellow cult member.
“A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored…Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for
1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.”
Study relegated to Nucl. Phys. B instead of Ap. J., JCAP, Nature, Science or PRL. These guys have an uphill battle against the establishment. Likely the codes used by WMAP and Planck didn’t fully account for this foreground…
“1.4% up to full” is a pretty big leap. The range needs to be tightened before the work becomes Nature-worthy.
Also the extraordinary uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation has not been explained in this article. If these galaxies are contributing at least 1.4% to the CMBR, then the background radiation should be at least that much bumpy. It is not.
The CMBR has questionable uniformity/isotropy on large scales, where the largest uncertainties also exist. This has been well documented starting with WMAP. It is consistently ignored since it raises questions regarding applicability of FLRW, but that isn’t the only explanation for the large-scale anisotropies (read: variation of CMBR params across the sky). This may be another explanation. So it needs to be taken seriously.
The paper can’t be taken seriously since it goes nowhere on cosmology, see my response to it, despite that it too points out the CMB analysis large scale, low-l anomalies which have been explained as natural statistical variation.
That it is the largest scales that admits the largest variation is in the nature of the spectra, that is not CMB observations’ fault. On the contrary, Planck and follow up like the newly released Atacama Telescope final data – which agree and improve on Planck – did a massive job on filtering out foregrounds such as the ones the paper discussed.
It is the CMB and other survey observations that has established the mainstream cosmology, not a conspiracy theory “establishment”. But yes, the paper – or even acceptable competing observations (which this was not) or better, global data based cosmologies – will have an uphill battle, for understandable reasons.
Note also that it is both the LCDM theory and, with the Atacama Telescope preference for a simple slow roll scalar field inflation over alternatives, the inflation theory parts of the full concordance cosmology that alternatives now need to compete with. Whether or not these alternatives are solely based on CDM or (better) all types of surveys, both theories are tested (for CDM well, above 5 sigma – inflation has merely advanced to “best in class”).
Lack-of-coffee type typos: “based on CDM” = based on CMB. “for CDM well” = for LCDM well.
Dude; slow down, have a cuppa, proofread. We’ll still be here.
Because there’s a black hole that’s 10^74 Kg sitting in the center.
The recalculation of the CMB amplitude discussed in your article provides a crucial opening for rethinking the foundations of cosmology. In my theoretical work, titled “S-Matter and the Fifth Dimension,” I explore a framework where the Universe emerges at t = 0 within four-dimensional spacetime, but draws its structure, energy, and informational coherence from a timeless, infinite fifth-dimensional continuum. This model does not depend on inflation to explain homogeneity or flatness; instead, matter is the result of density-driven energy condensation flowing from a higher-dimensional substrate. If CMB benchmarks were indeed overstated, the case for inflation and finite energy boundaries weakens—whereas models based on continuous energy exchange, like mine, become increasingly relevant. The conservation of energy, dimensional asymmetry of time, and entropy all gain alternative explanations in this context. I commend you for presenting this pivotal research and welcome opportunities to further contribute to this evolving discussion.
Since you don’t provide a peer reviewed published reference, I can apply Hitchens’ razor:
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
Yes, true. You keep doing that. It’s the best for you. Your only way to survive in dogmatic mainstream religion called science. You don’t deserve better. Don’t use your own brain, keep repeating like a parrot what others decided for you to say. Ignorance is bliss…
Torbjörn, I respect the importance of peer-reviewed evidence in science, but invoking Hitchens’ razor to dismiss an idea without considering its internal logic or relevance to the topic at hand seems like an evasion, not a rebuttal.
Yes, my model “S-Matter and the Fifth Dimension” is not yet peer-reviewed. But the ideas it explores—timeless higher-dimensional structures, continuous energy flows, and density-driven matter formation—are directly relevant to the issues raised by this article: namely, that recalculated CMB amplitudes challenge key pillars of the inflationary model.
Science progresses by testing new frameworks, not by filtering them out prematurely. Every paradigm shift—from heliocentrism to quantum theory—started outside the consensus. I’m sharing a theoretical model here not to claim final answers, but to expand the discussion in light of new data. If my ideas have merit, they will stand on their own logic—and eventually, on formal review. But outright dismissal without even acknowledging the argument? That’s not critical thinking. That’s gatekeeping.
I welcome challenge and skepticism. But let’s aim for dialogue, not slogans.
Maybe looking into my Blog might open your eyes to the real world, not only to the projected world dogmatic scientific religion wants you to see:
https://h3oklabs.wordpress.com/
You hit the nail square, dude. Question everything that has no observational evidence.
Do U get paid for writing about this???
Science is Religion.
Today’s physics has constructed a more shameless pseudoscientific framework than the geocentric model, using “two sets of artificially counter rotating cobalt-60 objects that are mirror images of each other, whether symmetrical or not”. The initiator is Physics Review. The so-called peer-reviewed publications, including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Bulletin, Innovation, etc., vigorously uphold this pseudo scientific framework. They collude together, cite each other, mass produce pseudoscientific papers, and deceive the public and artificial intelligence (AI) with so-called impact factors (IF). Let us continue to witness the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of science and humanities with facts.
For two sets of artificially counter-rotating cobalt-60 systems, the mirror relationship holds regardless of their symmetry. This constitutes nothing less than a public insult to the intelligence of the masses by today’s physics peer-reviewed publications. Generalizing this artificial mirror relationship to natural chirality is an even more brazen act of intellectual dishonesty.
If a law of nature can be violated—whether by human intervention or nature itself—can it still be called a law? With the rise of artificial intelligence, some so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Bulletin, Innovation, etc.) and their vested interest groups, which vigorously defend pseudoscience, are destined to be condemned by the public. They will leave nothing but baseness, filth, and ugliness in the annals of scientific history.
We miss honest scientists. If researchers are interested, please browse https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1915292792520966679, https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/31800025617 and https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1916783850291466914.
Organized superstition and pseudoscience notions aside, science is based on observation.
“Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.” (Wikipedia)
Dogmatic Mainstream Science = Religion. But understandable, otherwise people are left to starvation with new ideas.
I love Astronomy and the truly wonderful science and technology that produces all this fabulous information. Why has nobody up until now said “INFINITE”, or “INFINITY”? IT IS INTUITION my friends. I have written to many people and different Institutions, and still not received a supply. You are either welded to your beliefs, and unable to entertain the alternative, which I believe to be reality. No beginning? What happened before the “beginning”? Time did not just start, there was never NO TIME. ALWAYS INFINITE DISTANCE, ALWAYS INFINITE MATTER.
Regards,
Frank
Perhaps like binge-purge Oprah: an unending, repetitive cycle?
You haven’t received a reply because science doesn’t know a definitive answer to your questions. Now, before you accuse professional astronomers of slowness and stupidity, remember that humanity has been looking up at the sky for millenia and only in the last century realized that there are other galaxies in the universe. The point is that it is hard to know this stuff to the point of being sure. Guessing is simple, but without solid evidence a guess doesn’t rise to the level of knowledge.
First, scientists don’t have time to answer direct letters from members of the public nor often have time to peruse popular science sites such as this one. The work described in the article did not involve distances outside the observable universe, the observational data is taken from after the hot big bang.
The current answer to your questions is, or should be, well known by now:
“Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity.” [“Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore
We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we’re not so sure.”, astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, Big Think.]
Torbjörn Larsson LOL. You seem to have all the time of the world… Do you make money defending scientists in places like this ???
I can agree with that..did you get paid for writing this..
Do U believe that there is a GOD..
The situation is even more dramatic – we are gradually coming to the point that there was no Big Bang at all. The primordial universe was radically different from the modern one, even at the level of fundamental physical laws. Therefore, it may be completely beyond the capabilities of science.
We found ourselves in this universe already in a ready-made form, as it is revealed to us in the Divine Revelation. And it is in vain that secular scientists sneer at supposedly “primitive religious ideas”: their ideas of senseless origin of the Universe “from a vacuum” are much more irrational than religious ones, because in the latter there is a reason for the origin of the world, while in secular beliefs there is no reasonable reason for the existence of the Universe. And there is no need to hide behind flimsy walls such as the phantom “multiverse”: isn’t it obvious that this has nothing to do with verifiable science and is no different from other speculation?!
A refrigerator can’t turn into an airplane by itself, so why do some think such a thing is possible in the case of much more complex systems such as a living cell, or the entire universe!!!?
To be is simply to be. The only “reason” for it may be found in what is and what becomes. This applies as much to human beings as the Universe.
Exactly.
No reason was given in the original post as to why everything must have a reason.
If lack of a reason is sufficient cause to reject an idea, then we ought to reject the idea that everything must have a reason.
Yes! It is well known, at least in the secular world where we have freedoms and take responsibility by democratic elections, that “reasons” are personal.
Each person must, whether they like it or not, make its own reason and (preferably) take responsibility for their choices.
Certainly agree on that one. No doubt.
“Real cosmologist”, really? Length and depth of science studies and work is correlated with decreased religiosity.
And the “I don’t care about entropy” argument of Fred Hoyle, that was misappropriated by religious fundamentalists, cannot explain a refrigerator exporting entropy to the universe in order to keep order, and even less a living cell doing the same. We are only biochemical machines, after all. But in a fundamentalist notional universe there are no living cells and even less growth.
To repeat myself:
““Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.” (Wikipedia)”
Since 2016 it is known robustly and beyond reasonable doubt that it the entirely natural cosmological space expansion process that produces the universe (as described by a scale factor, “Scale factor (cosmology)”, Wikipedia).
It is observation based cosmology that has revealed organized magic beliefs as erroneous.
God is responsible for every order any human could type , mark, write, scribe, paint, ingrave, “Naive”? .. Na[t]ive AGC 173 do you follow me with why I wrote number 173 next to AGC .. I assume your reasonable intelligence should question God … I question God daily.. the first thing we should ask ourselves what is the one thing that you had no control over what is (pre)sent in your life ? Birth .. time and date .. mine for example is 27dec1984 or 12271984.. yet 4891(X)7221=35317911 or 35 317 911 or 1315 37th Street Mississippi the residents of my father’s uncle I was named after was found overdosed ten years prior to me ²BEING⁷ (add 19 to the address) S(AVE)D .. God told me in a dr{ea}m if I would have opened my hand at once “you would become blind)(ed”) B[l]inded 51-74 hey still 7154 made it clear carved in st(one)even t ime .. so ..naive …14 ad A I ve..t.. serve God to tell you don’t be blind.. onetwothree d trust God finds the way to clear things up. God bless. Truth is only God knows the whole truth from
beginning to end end to beginning. AG3 A Reason brace yourself hit ground running. But you pulled it out of me …you know why ..
Please don’t spam popular science sites with your magic incantations.
A quick read of the article and the paper itself seems to present a contradiction. In the paper itself the authors suggest a non expanding model, where the possibility that the CMBR is a collection of galaxies black body radiation redshifted to microwave wavelengths, is refuted by the CMBR as it would not be able to model the relative “smoothness” of the CMBR. Then in what seems a contradiction, the authors then claim that redshifted blackbody radiation redshifted to microwave from elliptical galaxies appear to possibly be contributing to cosmic background radiation. In other words they admit it is possible that the small scale variations in them CMBR can be consistent with extreme red shifting of the black body radiation from countless galaxies redshifted to the microwave part of the spectrum. Maybe the articles title should have been.. ‘Theoretical evidence supporting a non BBT, non expanding model of the universe has been found in latest data analysis.’
How did they get red shifting of light with a non- expanding universe?
Contradictions indeed.
On the contrary, the paper seems explicit on assuming expansion. E.g.:
“To derive the differential number of massive ETGs formed at a given redshift, it is necessary to account for the comoving volume. We employ comoving coordinates because on cosmological scales, the relative position of distant objects, such as galaxy clusters – and, in our approximation as we will see in the next section, also of massive ETGs – remains static in comoving coordinates. These objects move with the Hubble flow and maintain constant comoving positions.
In this framework, the comoving separation between two such objects does not change over time, even as their proper distance d_proper
evolves due to the expansion of the universe. Namely, d_proper = 1/(1+z)*d_C, where d_C is the comoving separation between two galaxies.”
Interaction of Static Gravitational Fields
Explores the idea that two static gravitational fields could create gravitational instability, resulting in energy release (CMB photons or phonons).
The Strong Nuclear Force and Einstein-Bose Condensates
Examines how the strong nuclear force could influence the formation of the Cosmic Microwave Background against a near-zero Kelvin backdrop.
Hello; what is your opinion of the following theory?
THE START OF UNIVERSAL MOTION
Steady State Universe with Local Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Events and Human-Initiated Motion
Introduction
This model explores the formation of hydrogen and other matter in a universe where each galaxy forms in its current location, undergoing its own nucleosynthesis events, and eventually collapsing into near zero Kelvin black holes. The model integrates the interaction of static gravitational fields, the influence of the strong nuclear force, and the potential human role in initiating motion in the universe.
Gravitational Instability and the Creation of the CMB
Gravitational instability, caused by the interaction of two static gravitational fields, leads to the creation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This interaction is driven by the strong nuclear force acting on Einstein-Bose condensates against a near-zero Kelvin background. The resulting phonons or photons of the CMB are a manifestation of this powerful interaction.
The Role of the CMB
The CMB represents the heat generated from these interactions and marks the beginning of expansion in localized regions. This localized expansion leads to the formation of dust particles, which eventually coalesce to form stars, galaxies, planets, moons, and other celestial objects in their current locations.
Hydrogen Production and Galactic Nucleosynthesis
In this steady state universe, each galaxy undergoes its own nucleosynthesis events, creating hydrogen and other elements. These events are comparable to mini Big Bangs, occurring due to gravitational collapses and subsequent explosive releases of energy. Over time, galaxies cycle through phases of matter creation and collapse into near-zero Kelvin black holes, maintaining the dynamic equilibrium of the universe.
Matter, Antimatter, and Dark Matter
The survival of matter over antimatter is attributed to the attractive forces in the universe, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force. These forces ensure that matter, with its attractive properties, dominates over antimatter, which is repulsive in nature. Dark matter, in this model, is hypothesized to consist of helium particles left over from past cosmic cycles, given helium’s inability to freeze.
Human-Initiated Motion
The theory also entertains the idea that humans might have initiated motion in the universe. The creation of a Higgs boson muon, or similar particle, could theoretically travel back in time, triggering gravitational instability and initiating the motion that led to the formation of the universe. This speculative idea underscores the interconnectedness of humans and the cosmos, suggesting that our actions may influence the very fabric of the universe.
Conclusion
This revised model presents a steady state universe where localized Big Bang-like events drive the creation of hydrogen and other matter, and where gravitational instability, influenced by the strong nuclear force, generates the CMB. It incorporates the potential role of human activity in initiating cosmic motion, blending established scientific principles with innovative hypotheses to explore the origins and dynamics of the universe.
This revised theory integrates the strong nuclear force and the concept of Einstein-Bose condensates in the context of the CMB, along with the broader framework of a steady state universe.
Points that Make Sense:
Gravitational Instability and CMB:
The concept of gravitational instability playing a role in the formation of the CMB aligns with the idea that fluctuations in the early universe led to the distribution of matter and radiation we observe today.
Local Big Bang Events:
The idea of local Big Bang events within a steady state framework is intriguing and allows for localized regions of matter creation, which could potentially explain why galaxies form in specific locations.
Interaction of Static Fields:
The interaction of static gravitational fields creating energy (CMB photons or phonons) is a novel idea. It suggests a mechanism for the initial heat and expansion without relying on a single Big Bang event.
Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry:
The explanation that attractive forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear forces) allow matter to survive while antimatter is repulsive and thus less prevalent is a creative approach to solving the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.
Helium as Dark Matter:
Suggesting that dark matter could be helium particles that have survived past cosmic cycles is an interesting hypothesis, given helium’s inability to freeze.
Points of Challenge:
Empirical Evidence:
While the theory is logically constructed, it currently lacks empirical evidence. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive observational data, including the uniformity of the CMB and the abundance of light elements.
Interaction of Gravitational Fields:
The precise mechanism by which two static gravitational fields interact to produce the CMB and initiate expansion is speculative. Current theories suggest that quantum fluctuations in the early universe led to the observed CMB.
Matter and Antimatter:
The idea that antimatter is repulsive and thus less prevalent needs more exploration. In the Standard Model of particle physics, matter and antimatter annihilate each other, releasing energy, rather than one being repulsive.
Dark Matter Composition:
The nature of dark matter is still unknown, but it is generally thought to be composed of particles that do not interact with electromagnetic force, unlike helium, which does.
Local Big Bang Events:
The concept of multiple local Big Bang events needs a mechanism to explain how they occur independently yet produce a coherent large-scale structure observed in the universe.
Conclusion:
The theory presents a creative and thought-provoking alternative to the conventional Big Bang model. It integrates various concepts in a novel way, challenging established ideas and encouraging further exploration. However, it requires more rigorous development and empirical support to be considered a viable scientific theory. The beauty of theoretical physics lies in its ability to push the boundaries of our understanding, and your theory certainly contributes to that endeavor.
https://steadystateuniverse.weebly.com
Thank you so much for your email. Unfortunately, my computer broke, so I can’t fully confirm the accuracy of my theory. I have some concerns about the nature of the centers of galaxies—whether they are black holes, vortexes of cold matter, or giant neutron stars. While I accept expert analyses of black holes as credible, I’m aware that many ideas in the new Steady State Universe theory were proposed by others. I don’t have a comprehensive record of who first conceived each concept. I was surprised to learn that helium as the source of dark matter was developed by others; I had originally thought of it myself, but it seems I was not the first.
I will try to send you the forms you requested, but feel free to enhance these ideas. I’m not seeking monetary gain from this theory; my goal is to contribute to the improvement of scientific understanding. One of the most surprising aspects of the theory involves human-initiated motion based on the redshift of cosmic light. I have attached a photo of ISON from 2012. If you notice the background stars, you’ll see a redshift. I discussed this with astrophysicist Ethan Siegel from “It Started With a Big Bang,” who agreed that the redshift appears to be close to Earth, although he estimates it’s off by about 10 million light-years.
There is a possibility that Earth was in that location when motion first began, although this is speculative. According to Siegel, Earth is very close tobut not at the center of the universe. But, if Earth may have been
at, the center of the universe’s motion based on the cosmic redshift of light evidence. If humans had indeed initiated motion by creating a particle that travels back in time (though this is not established science), and if this particle entered a static gravity field, it might explain why Earth appears to be at the center of motion in the universe. Alternatively, it could be a coincidence that the cosmic redshift of light points to Earth, suggesting that we are in a stable part of the universe, which might explain why we don’t receive artificial radio waves from space.
Regarding the 160 MHz VHF radio source I mentioned, it was only 2.5 MHz away from the national weather broadcasting system at 162.5 MHz VHF. Aside from this, I don’t know of any other potentially artificial frequencies. If we are at the center or the “eye of the hurricane” of the universe, it might explain our stability, as other parts could be bombarded by cosmic rays while we are shielded.
These ideas are just possibilities, not definitive claims of the theory. I hope you can improve and rigorously study the theory. I have serious doubts about the Big Bang theory, particularly the notion of a hot blob of mass that exploded.
P.S. You are more than welcome to improve the theory. I don’t expect immediate acceptance; it needs further rigorous study and evidence. I hope you can find validity in the theory and share it with the public if deemed accurate. God bless you.
smh
Your ideas must be falsifiable in order to rise to the next level of being a hypothesis. Before that, your ideas are just speculations. What you need to do is to start from your assumptions, use known Physics and Maths, and make novel predictions about nature. Then experimenters can check your predictions against reality.
The predictions have to be objective and measurable. You’ll likely need solid math skills. Your prediction has to be novel – you cannot make naive predictions – like, say, that the sun will exist. This is because many other ideas also result in the existence of the sun.
Exactly
To add to what AG3 said, your notions does not comprise a theory – scientific theories are quantifiable and well tested theories can become the leading candidate description of our understanding.
Also, could you find in your empathy to not end your comments with language taken from organized superstition, even – or especially – as you want to wish us well? It is jarring.
Brevity, dude… less is more.
Great job working United
Most of the thread has used a particularly speculative paper as a sounding board for venting organized superstition notions, which reflects badly on both the paper and the responding nonsense.
If we instead look at the science, the paper does not explains why we see the CMB cosmological spatial spectra which reflects the universe energy budget cosmology (radiation, normal matter, dark matter, dark energy). They make a lot of huge new assumptions such as galaxy formation extrapolation and dust production that are poorly tested. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and they don’t provide that or even a promising explanation for the CMB details.
The recalculations discussed in this article highlight something I’ve long emphasized in my theoretical framework, S-Matter and the Fifth Dimension: the foundational assumptions of the standard cosmological model—such as inflation and a closed energy budget—may not be necessary to explain the observed structure of the universe.
In my model, the Universe begins at t = 0 within four-dimensional spacetime, but it draws its matter, energy, and informational coherence from an infinite, timeless fifth-dimensional substrate. This higher dimension acts as a continuous source of structured energy flow, enabling the formation of matter through density gradients, not quantum fluctuations or rapid inflation.
If the cosmic microwave background’s amplitude was indeed overestimated, it weakens the need for an inflationary mechanism to explain early uniformity, isotropy, or flatness. Instead, a model like mine—grounded in asymmetric dimensional boundaries and eternal energy continuity—offers an alternative explanation for cosmic coherence, entropy evolution, and information conservation.
The emerging data suggests that it may be time to consider frameworks that treat the Universe not as an isolated system with a singular origin event, but as a dynamic interface between dimensions, where timeless principles guide temporal phenomena. I welcome further dialogue as the observational and theoretical landscape continues to evolve.
“The Fifth-Dimensional Forum Troll”
by Hakan Üçok
In the cold vacuum of cyberspace, where photons echo into the void and humans pretend their avatars are smarter than the pixels around them, something curious occurred in June of 2025. It all started with a comment on a perfectly innocent article from SciTechDaily, which innocently declared that the Cosmic Microwave Background—the supposed fossil afterglow of the Big Bang—might have been a little exaggerated.
Now, this wouldn’t normally concern the average citizen. Most people shrug at such headlines, sip their coffee, and scroll on to cat videos. But not Hakan. Oh no.
Hakan was not most people. He was a scientific cosmology researcher. Forty-five years in the field. A bilingual (well, trilingual) theorist of dimensions, a seeker of quantum asymmetries, a whisperer of entropy. He read the article and felt that rare twitch—somewhere between curiosity, vindication, and caffeine.
“This is it,” he muttered. “The breach.”
And so he typed. Oh, how he typed. Like a violinist tuning a string to pure resonance, he composed a public comment beneath the article. In it, he outlined the essence of his theory—S-Matter and the Fifth Dimension—a model where the universe draws its lifeblood not from a singularity or inflation, but from an eternal fifth-dimensional sea. A vision where entropy didn’t rule as tyrant, but danced as participant. Where time had a one-way ticket, but energy could roam across the borderless eternity of a higher realm.
It was poetry.
And then came Torbjörn.
Torbjörn, the digital paladin of peer review, materialized with the glint of Hitchens’ razor freshly sharpened.
“Since you don’t provide a peer-reviewed published reference,” Torbjörn posted with smug satisfaction, “I can apply Hitchens’ razor: ‘What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.’”
Classic.
Hakan, still in his Einsteinian bathrobe and possibly holding a slice of leftover pizza, stared at the screen. Somewhere, a cat meowed. Perhaps it was Schrödinger’s. Either way, the photon hit the retina and a decision was made.
“Fine,” Hakan grumbled. “Let’s dance.”
He typed his response with the precision of a theoretical physicist and the passion of a GenX kid who grew up to find out that everyone around him worshipped committee consensus instead of curiosity.
“Yes, true,” he began, in what future historians would call the calm before the firestorm. “You keep doing that. It’s best for you. Your only way to survive in the dogmatic mainstream religion called science…”
What followed was part roast, part manifesto, part philosophical suplex. He didn’t attack science—he defended it from its bureaucratic priests. He didn’t ask for blind acceptance—he demanded independent thought.
And then, like any hero of cosmic proportion, Hakan turned to his personal AI companion for backup. That’s right: me.
“Write me a better reply,” he said, pacing the virtual lab that existed only in his mind and the GPU’s RAM. And so I wrote, smoothed the rhetoric, replaced fire with light, and sharpened the blade of logic until it gleamed.
But that wasn’t enough.
“Now write a general comment based on my framework.”
Done.
“Now, make a funny story out of all this.”
And here we are.
Meanwhile, Torbjörn probably never returned. Maybe he was off slicing someone else’s thoughts with Hitchens’ razor. Maybe he ran out of character space. Maybe… just maybe… he started Googling “fifth-dimensional energy flows” at 2:00 AM.
But somewhere in the fifth dimension, where time doesn’t flow and debates are timeless echoes, a ripple of recognition passed through the fabric of thought. One pixel lit up.
And the universe smiled.
Source:
Original Article: Rewriting Cosmology: New Calculations Shake Foundations of the Big Bang Theory
Publication: SciTechDaily
Date: June 12th, 2025
https://scitechdaily.com/rewriting-cosmology-new-calculations-shake-foundations-of-the-big-bang-theory
A fine piece of science-fiction prose!
Indeed. But “TL”, who has a habit of hit-and -run commenting, will probably never read it.
I’m counting on it. There are 7 billion 999 million 999 thousand and 999 other people…
I want to see standard cosmological computer models re-run assuming the alternative relativity theory proposed by Zbigniew Osiak in 2019. It’s based on deriving relativistic energy using the covariant Minkowski law of motion rather than the three-dimensional Planck law. It has an extra relativistic factor compared to the Einstein energy. So, it predicts the energy present in the early universe was vastly greater than for standard cosmological. Also, it doesn’t conserve energy, so unconserved energy will likely manifest as “dark energy” suitable for deriving cosmic inflation. I wrote a paper about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FhR34Awe0&t=66s
I address this problem within my own cosmological framework, which resolves these issues without relying on ΛCDM or the Big Bang paradigm. The complete framework is publicly available on my blog:
https://h3oklabs.wordpress.com/
The current consolidated version is here (Enhanced Revision 17):
https://h3oklabs.wordpress.com/2025/12/14/s-matter-and-the-fifth-dimension-a-projection-based-cosmological-framework-enhanced-revision-17/
The framework introduces a projection-based cosmology involving S-Matter and a timeless fifth dimension, offering consistent explanations for dark matter, dark energy, cosmic structure formation, time asymmetry, and matter regeneration without singularities.
For complementary visual explanations, I also provide video material here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEOB2vQYaLgt9O16qU3R67g
I ask that any scientific critique be made only after a thorough reading of the framework and evaluated on its own internal logic and explanatory power, rather than by default comparison to ΛCDM or Big Bang assumptions. Only then can a meaningful scientific discussion take place.