James Webb Telescope's shocking findings spectacularly validate the revolutionary, ‘ultimate theory' of science
James Webb Telescope is looking at 13.5 billion years old objects from human perspective, but is seeing in real-time from universe's perspective.
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been repeatedly making global headline news. It has shaken the foundations of cosmology, and entire science. JWST has discovered that MoM z14 galaxy existed when the universe was just 280 million years old (i.e. when the universe was really in infant stage). The measured emission lines from this galaxy indicated overabundance of elements like nitrogen and carbon. This was damn shocking because there is not a single theoretical model that predicts this much nitrogen this early on (which would require the birth and death of several generations of stars). JWST also discovered Zhúlóng, an enormous spiral galaxy (appears as Milky Way galaxy's cosmic twin). Zhúlóng is a mature galaxy and seriously challenges current theories about galaxy formation. JWST has made many other such incredible discoveries. But the core message is: the infant universe appears to be eerily similar to what it is right now after 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. The reason why the infant universe looks the same as mature (adult) universe might be very simple: James Webb Telescope is looking at 13.5 billion years old objects from human perspective, but is seeing in real-time from universe's perspective, and hence it looking at those distant object as it is right now. It will be shame if the core message from the largest and most powerful space telescope ever (with a price tag of more than 10 billion US dollars) is ignored by the global scientific community.
At the heart of Einstein's relativity, there is a contradiction; a paradox. For any observer, light appears to be travelling at the velocity c (= 299,792,458 m/s), and hence would take millions or even billions of years to move from one galaxy to another. But from the photon's perspective, time stops ticking completely. Photon (particle of light) does not experience the passage of time while moving from one galaxy to another. In other words, light can travel instantaneously across farthest distances in the universe. Unfortunately, Einstein did not understand the true physical meaning of relativity, and the world is also unaware what Einstein's mathematics is really telling.
A revolutionary theory has emerged which reconciles the two bitterly conflicting pillars of physics, as well as unifies physics with cosmology. It claims to satisfy all three necessary conditions for a scientific revolution, and usher in a complete paradigm shift in science. It claims that the universe is like an expanding (hyper) balloon, which has a 3D hyper-surface. The wall of the balloon universe is made up of invisible scalar fields (somewhat similar to invisible electric and magnetic fields) and particles (which are mere excitations/resonances in those fields, just as the stunningly accurate 'Quantum Field Theory' insists). Since stars and planets and even humans are made up of particles, therefore all forms of matter is eternally trapped within the 3D hypersurface of fields which makes up the wall of the (hyper) balloon. The above-mentioned article claimed about the existence of two different frames of reference/viewpoints (one viewpoint is from any point on the surface, and another viewpoint is from the center of the balloon universe). The universe is perceived differently from each viewpoint, and this also implies the existence of two different concepts of time. Photon's perspective happens to be the center of the universe viewpoint.
There are two pillars of modern physics: Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both are spectacularly successful in their own domains, but are in bitter mutual conflicts. The core conflict is about the nature of time and is known as the 'problem of time'. Quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. Experiments have supported both concepts. Sagnac effect demonstrates that simultaneity is absolute and support Quantum Mechanics' view of time. Muon decay experiments as well as Hafele-Keating experiment (which involved flying atomic clocks around the world on commercial airplanes) support relativistic view about time. Actually Quantum Mechanics is the center of the universe perspective, while relativity is all about being trapped in the 3D (hyper) surface of the expanding universe, but being free to move along any three mutually perpendicular directions. Physics and cosmology are both in crisis because of (presently accepted) wrong model of the universe.
Veritasium science channel hosts a YouTube video (23 million views) titled 'Why No One Has Measured the Speed of Light' which explains why it is fundamentally impossible to measure the one-way speed of light. That video provides a crucial hint of how nature truly works. The presenter gives the accepted value of speed of light (c = 299,792,458 m/s) and then goes on to prove that light may never travel at this speed!
While one way speed of light cannot be measured, the two way speed of light can be measured (by placing a mirror at the other end for reflecting light). But now, the problem shifts to synchronization of the two clocks placed at the source and the mirror.
The real problem lies NOT with ONE WAY speed. The true problem is whether a distant point is also located in the past or not.
The two-way velocity of light has been measured very accurately and found to be 299,792,458 m/s. But, what if, the delay in time (between the shining of torch and detection after reflection in the mirror) is actually contributed by the space distance? Indeed, that is exactly what happens! Please see the provided image. Actually the velocity of light is infinite. It the peculiarity of Minkowski SpaceTime (MST) hyperbolic geometry which throttles the value of the velocity of light (as well as velocity of gravity wave) at the particular value c. Actually, c is the expansion velocity of the universe, and light picks this particular value. It is a peculiarity of MST geometry that it mixes space and time. As any object moves very fast, the spatial distance covered (dr) is large. Therefore, the base of the right angled triangle is large. But as the base increases, the hypotenuse also increases, and hence time dilation (dt) also increases. Therefore, the space (spatial) distance gets measured as time distance. It is for this reason that the farther an object is located the more distant in the past it lies.
However, that problem arises for humans (trapped eternally in the surface of the balloon universe), because of the compulsion of placing the origin at the wrong place. But for nature, the origin is at the true center of the universe and hence distances between points located on the surface are ignored. From nature's view, simultaneity is absolute. That is because the time elapsed since the Big Bang is just a function of radius of the universe (distance from true center of the universe to any point on the surface), and is same everywhere. Whether the point is located on the moon or the sun or on the Andromeda galaxy does not matter, because all of them are equidistant from the true center of the universe (where the Big Bang happened).
In essence, the James Webb Telescope (JWST) it looking at those distant galaxies as it is right now! Just because those galaxies are extremely red-shifted does not mean that they have to be in the very distant past (from nature's perspective). Light is travelling instantly from those galaxies to JWST. This is not an insane claim. After all, quantum entanglement experiments have demonstrated beyond doubt that particles can communicate instantly over vast distances. Similarly, emission and absorption of photons takes place simultaneously, but appear to have travelled at finite velocity c from human perspective.
BUT WHY THE 'ULTIMATE' TAG WITH THIS SCIENCE THEORY? Is it justified?
Probably, yes. The list of achievements (explaining power) of this theory is incredibly stunning. It easily (and naturally) explains:
1) Standard Model of Particle physics (which accounts for three forces, and all particles of nature), by explaining the origin of U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) internal symmetries.
2) Principle of Least Action (PLA). All known laws of physics can be derived from PLA. The PLA can be generalized to 'Principle of Maximum Proper time', which reduces to the shockingly simple statement: 'The least distance between two points in four dimensional (hyper) space is a straight line'. Nature's true geometry is therefore Euclidean, and nature has to obey this geometrical (mathematical) law everywhere!
3) Ever increasing entropy (second law of thermodynamics). Many scientists regard this as the most fundamental law, but, in fact, it originates from the stretching of the wall (expansion of 3D space) of the universe.
4) Imaginary time and its relation with temperature.
5) Origin of crucial conservation laws of physics (arises from the simple symmetries of the balloon according to Noether's theorem).
6) True origin of the rest mass energy (which is given by the most famous equation of science E=mc2).
It supersedes the two pillars of modern physics. It also unifies physics and cosmology, and can replace the (presently accepted) Standard Model of Cosmology.
In addition, this theory may remain reigning for a long time to come. It is immune to new physics. For example:
Discovery of Higg's Boson in 2012 has completed the Standard Model of Particle physics. Claims of new physics at extremely small distances (which is taken to be synonymous with extremely high energy) may be erroneous. Since time and space starts exchanging roles at a very small size scale (according to above model), the above logic might also reverse. This is actually hinted by nature: i) Strong nuclear force start becoming weak at smaller distances (the relative coupling strength decreases with increasing energy). ii) Quarks interaction strength also decreases with distance (Asymptotic freedom).
This theory is also immune to new physics (new particles etc.) arising due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The universe is expanding at a constant rate (zero acceleration) and hence there is no Dark Energy. This theory reinterprets the physical meaning of all metrics (like FLRW metric, Minskowski metric, Schwarzchild metric) and claims that Dark Matter is an illusion arising from improper understanding of General Relativity.
This theory clearly states that the universe is a (hyper) balloon in 4D (hyper) space, which is Euclidean rather than Minkowskian. The 4D (hyper) space may be infinite in extent. Emptiness (nothingness of true vacuum) may be infinite in spatial extent. But amount of field and matter (which constitutes the universe) is finite.
What about multiverse? This theory does not deny it, but does not require it either. It is silent on that topic. And even if multiverses really existed, there will be absolutely no interaction (of our universe) with those universes. Not even gravity leaks outside the 3+1 dimensions, as confirmed by recent measurements. So as far as humans are concerned, it is a final and ultimate theory. It is THE rock solid foundation on which all future theories in science will be based. It is THE bedrock theory of entire science.
[194 National Anthems tunes have been merged into a single tune using World's most intelligent, musical A.I. software 'Emmy', to create this United Nations Anthem (World Anthem). Kindly watch and share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SHycxT5-oM ]
Mr. Joseph T. Kurien (a former Cochin University graduate) is an independent researcher and a part-time science writer. He presently works in Manappuram software and consultancy.
Media Contact
Company Name: Manappuram software and consultancy
Contact Person: Joseph T. Kurien
Email: Send Email
State: Kerala
Country: India
Website: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559986357449
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
The U.S. is cutting billions from science. Canadian researchers say it's time to step up
Social Sharing Scientists in Canada are scrambling. Over the past few months, the U.S. government has cut billions of dollars in funding from scientific research as part of sweeping cost-cutting measures. "It's really shocking. It's really like this big cloud over science," Kate Moran, CEO of Ocean Networks Canada, told Quirks & Quarks. Ocean Networks Canada participates in a project called the Argo system, an international program that collects information from on and under the ocean using a fleet of robotic instruments that drift with the ocean currents. But that program, which is led by researchers in the U.S., could be at risk. Many Canadian research groups rely heavily on U.S. partners for support and data. But since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, that support has taken a massive hit. The New York Times reported in March that the administration plans to reduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) workforce by up to 20 per cent, which Moran says could have a direct impact on their work. Some of those staffing cuts at the NOAA have already happened. "Because the U.S. is such a big player, I'm not sure we could step up and be like the U.S.," said Moran. And cuts are happening across the board. The administration terminated $1 billion US in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, a move ruled "void and illegal" and blocked by a district judge earlier this month. The government has also been in a battle with Harvard University, putting billions of dollars of potential funding in jeopardy. Layoffs across a number of government agencies have been put on hold by a federal judge in California. In an executive order issued by the White House in May, Trump said that "over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly." "My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available." Environment and Climate Change Canada told CBC in a statement it "has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on operational and research activities related to weather, climate, satellites, and water monitoring," and that the "department has not been formally informed of any changes to its collaboration with NOAA." The trickle-down effect of cuts has left Canadian researchers trying to figure out how to adapt to these uncertain times, while others say it's now Canada's responsibility to step up. Targeting climate science Environmental science and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts seem to be a direct target of the Trump administration's cuts. More than 1,000 scientists and other employees are set to be laid-off from the Environmental Protection Agency's research office. The effects have been felt in Canada. Researchers here filling out forms for U.S. government grants have had to answer questions such as "Can you confirm this is not a climate or 'environmental justice' project or include such elements?" and "Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project?" The political climate has Deborah Wench on edge. She relies heavily on information from long-term monitoring projects to fuel her research into the carbon cycle. Wench studies how carbon flows between different climates. To do that, she needs long-term data sets collected from satellites. Wench says the U.S. operates a lot of the satellites used in her research. "I'm not really sure how to express this. It's mostly, for me, a sense of impending doom," said Wench, an associate professor at the University of Toronto. "It's taken decades and the careers of thousands of people to build up these measurement records, and it looks like it will take months to destroy them." Though she didn't want to specify which specific instruments she uses, she says she's concerned it's on the chopping block in the U.S., which would mean a loss of long-term monitoring. Then there's HAWC, a project that will use three Canadian-built instruments to measure the amount of aerosols, water vapour and thin ice clouds in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The information could be used to improve future climate projects, assuming it continues to receive NASA support. Trump's 2026 budget, released in May, proposed a $6 billion US funding cut to the space agency, amounting to 24 per cent of NASA's current budget. WATCH | Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat: Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat 12 minutes ago Duration 1:32 These robot scientists dive deep into the ocean to measure the vital signs of planet Earth. But proposed funding cuts in the U.S. could mean critical climate data is on the chopping block. "Much of it is just so speculative, right?" said Chris Fletcher, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo. "We're still kind of on the descent.... So it's unclear yet exactly how all of this will shake out, and it's quite unsettling." One of the HAWC instruments was supposed to be attached to a NASA satellite. But Fletcher says that's now in question. "I'm confident from the Canadian side that because of this tremendous investment that Canada has made, that our instruments will fly. The question is about which components of the proposed NASA mission will fly," said Fletcher. CBC reached out to the Canadian Space Agency, but did not recieve a comment before publication. What happens next Canada's Department of Innovation, Science and Industry did not provide an interview or comment to CBC about how Canada plans to respond to funding cuts in the U.S. Frédéric Bouchard says the turmoil in the U.S. means a greater responsibility for Canada to assert its scientific sovereignty. He was part of the federally funded Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, which, in 2023, took a deep dive into how Canada could better support scientific research. "It's our own responsibility to make sure that we have a strong and generous science capacity so we have access to the experts we need, when we need them," said Bouchard, a philosopher of science and dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at the Université de Montréal. "We shouldn't wait for other countries to do all the hard work and hope that we can benefit from it." He says that as American scientists leave the United States, Canada could welcome some of those researchers. He also said it will be important to invest in the future, including support for graduate students both in Canada and abroad in the United States, to make sure they're able to continue work in their field. Even so, Bouchard says, what's happening in the U.S. is going to have an impact — there's no stopping that. "What's happening is destabilizing science across the world," said Bouchard. "We need to make sure we play a larger role and that we build our own muscle mass, if you will, to be able to withstand more of the disruption." Moran says Ocean Networks Canada, and other organizations like it, are ready to do so. She says they are prepared to do simple things, such as download data to protect the long-term data sets. And if there are more cuts in the U.S., she says she's prepared to make the case to the Canadian government and request more funding. "We're talking about what we could do to fill those gaps," said Moran. "Canada has all the skills and knowledge and scientists." Politically-driven chaos is disrupting U.S. scientific institutions and creating challenges for science in Canada. Science is a global endeavour and collaborations with the U.S. are routine. In this special episode of Quirks & Quarks, we explore what Canadian scientists are doing to preserve their work to assert scientific sovereignty in the face of this unprecedented destabilization. Canadian climate scientists brace for cuts to climate science infrastructure and data U.S. President Donald Trump's attacks on climate science are putting our Earth observing systems, in the oceans and in orbit, at risk. Canadian scientists who rely on U.S. led climate data infrastructure worry about losing long-term data that would affect our ability to understand our changing climate. With: Kate Moran, the president and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada and Emeritus Professor of Oceanography at the University of Victoria Debra Wunch, Physicist at the University of TorontoChris Fletcher, Department of Geography and Environmental Management at the University of Waterloo U.S. cuts to Great Lakes science and monitoring threaten our shared freshwater resourceU.S. budget and staffing cuts are jeopardizing the long-standing collaboration with our southern neighbour to maintain the health of the Great Lakes, our shared resource and the largest freshwater system in the world. With: Jérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research and part-time professor at the University of OttawaGreg McClinchey, policy and legislative director with the Great Lakes Fishery CommissionMichael Wilkie, Biologist at Wilfred Laurier UniversityBrittney Borowiec, research associate in the Wilkie Lab at Wilfred Laurier UniversityAaron Fisk, Ecologist and Canada Research Chair at the University of Windsor Unexpected ways U.S. culture war policies are affecting Canadian scientists One of the first things President Trump did after taking office was to sign an executive order eliminating all DEI policies in the federal government. This is having far-reaching consequences for Canadian scientists as they navigate the new reality of our frequent research partner's hostility against so-called 'woke science.'With:Dr. Sofia Ahmed, Clinician scientist, and academic lead for the Women and Children's Health Research Institute at the University of Alberta Angela Kaida, professor of health sciences and Canada Research Chair at Simon Fraser University in VancouverDawn Bowdish, professor of immunology, the executive director of the Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health and Canada Research Chair at McMaster UniversityKevin Zhao, MD/PhD student in immunology in the Bowdish Lab at McMaster UniversityJérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research Canada has a 'responsibility' to step up and assert scientific sovereigntyA 2023 report on how to strengthen our federal research support system could be our roadmap to more robust scientific sovereignty. The Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System made recommendations to the federal government for how we could reform our funding landscape. The intent was to allow us to quickly respond to national research priorities and to make Canada a more enticing research partner in world science. With: Frédéric Bouchard, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and professor of philosophy of science at the Université de Montreal. Chair of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System.
Globe and Mail
12 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. judge blocks National Science Foundation from slashing universities' federal funding
A federal judge on Friday prevented the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston invalidated a policy NSF adopted in May that limited the ability of universities to be reimbursed for administrative and facility costs that indirectly support grant-funded research, ruling that it was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Spokespeople for NSF and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. NSF, a US$9 billion agency that funds scientific research, adopted the policy after having already canceled hundreds of grants out of step with the Republican president's priorities. His administration has also been freezing billions of dollars in government funding for numerous universities, including Harvard. NSF's policy, which was announced on May 2, set a cap on how much grant funding could go to cover indirect costs. NSF said funding for such costs could equal no more than 15% of the funding for direct research costs, regardless of what the costs actually were at universities. Historically, universities had negotiated with NSF and other agencies over the rate at which indirect costs could be reimbursed. The cap meant that for every $100 in funding going directly to a research grant award, universities would receive just $15 to cover overhead, such as the costs of maintaining lab space and paying for electricity and staff. The Trump administration said it sought through the policy to rein in spending on administrative overhead, which had grown to consume US$1.07 billion of NSF's annual US$4.22 billion grant-making budget for higher education institutions. That rate, though, is significantly lower than the indirect cost that many of the 69 research universities belonging to Association of American Universities had negotiated, which was often in the 50 per cent to 65 per cent range, the group's lawyers said. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said in her Friday decision that the administration's 15 per cent rate was unlawful. The association along with two other academic trade groups and 13 schools sued in May to block the policy, after earlier convincing judges in Boston to block similar funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday decision. Among the schools that challenged NSF's funding cuts were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Brown University, the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania. They argued that NSF's action, if allowed to stand, 'will badly undermine scientific research at America's universities and erode our nation's enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.' The U.S. Department of Defense has since also adopted a 15 per cent cap, which a judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked pending a hearing on July 2. He did so a day after a different judge in Boston ordered NIH to reinstate hundreds of grants for research on diversity-related topics nixed as part of the administration's purge of initiatives viewed as supporting 'diversity, equity and inclusion.'
CTV News
18 hours ago
- CTV News
NASA spacecraft around the moon photographs the crash site of a Japanese company's lunar lander
This image provided by NASA shows an annotation indicating the impact site for ispace's Resilience lunar lander, seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera on June 11, 2025. (NASA/Goddard/Arizona State University via AP) CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — A NASA spacecraft around the moon has photographed the crash site of a Japanese company's lunar lander. NASA released the pictures Friday, two weeks after ispace's lander slammed into the moon. The images show a dark smudge where the lander, named Resilience, and its mini rover crashed into Mare Frigoris or Sea of Cold, a volcanic region in the moon's far north. A faint halo around the area was formed by the lunar dirt kicked up by the impact. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter captured the scene last week. The crash was the second failure in two years for Tokyo-based ispace. Company officials plan to hold a news conference next week to explain what doomed the latest mission, launched from Cape Canaveral in January. Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
