New JWST data analysis shows the early universe wasnt as pristine as the BBT predicts.

Ive just read an article on a recently published paper “Early metal-enriched baryon cycling before the midpoint of cosmic reionization. Yongda Zhu, 2026” 

Up till now it has been predicted that there could only be first generation young stars surrounded by pristine gas at 500 million years after the “beginning” of the Big Bang. Yet now, thanks to JWST, new data analysis has shown us that not only are there no new young early BBT stars visible at all and instead only impossibly mature galaxies. But there is also no pristine gas observable at this early epoch either. What this recent JWST data analysis found in this ‘early’ epoch was impossible to explain complex chemical and element signatures. Elements and chemical signatures not expected to be able to occur at such early times so soon after creation in a Big Bang universe. In fact these complex chemicals and these mature galaxies are only predicted to occur much later in the Big Bang model. Essentially JWST shows us that the Big Bang at 500 million years of age looks no different from our nearby mature local universe.

So now we have not one but two failed fundamentally important predictions for the Big Bang model. Without confirmation of these predictions one would reasonably expect the Big Bang model to be considered a complete scientific failure.

However as usual, rather than admit the BBT has failed once again, theorists ignore these failures and pretend instead that yes once again this is another amazing success story for the BBT! How is this possible?

A simple theoretical sleight of hand is all that’s necessary for Big Bang theorists to rescue their preferred model: The reason why all those predicted young stars of the ‘early’ universe can’t be found in JWST deep field images is because the newly discovered chemically complex gases, that incidentally were also not predicted to exist at all in an early Big Bang model, were covering up the evidence of the existence of these imaginary young stars. 

So the story now is that yes, there were a generation of young stars in the early universe as predicted by the BBT. But we can’t see them because they are covered up by complex chemical gases in the same early universe. Chemical gases which up until now were not only unpredicted but also considered impossible under the very same Big Bang model.

In other words instead of finding only new young stars and pristine gaseous environments in the early BBT universe, JWST has discovered that the early universe looks virtually identical to our current mature universe. 

Unfortunately this incredible failure of Big Bang theory once again hasn’t deterred the supporters of the Big Bang model. Because rather accepting that the data contradicts the fundamental basics of Big bang theory, this new unexpected analysis of JWST data is considered to be a confirmation of and a massive success for the BBT!

As always a failure of prediction, so endemic to BB theory, can easily be turned to an advantage. 

Because in Big Bang La-la land:

two failed old predictions = one successful newly minted prediction.

Pseudoscience at its best thanks to brilliant maths.

Quantum jumps of sound

The original Makihara et al paper is paywalled unfortunately but this Stanford article says the researchers Takuma Makihara and Erik Szakiel developed “a way to pair a microscopic mechanical resonator with a superconducting qubit, which is an electrical circuit that can store quantum information and serve as a detector.”

According to the article this experiments results can only be described as a quantum like in behaviour. Apparently unlike a ‘classical resonating bell atom model’ which predicts a gradual ringing decline the research showed the ring abruptly stopped ringing and thus exhibited what could only be classified as a quantum jump. Not possible with a classical model they suggest.

Unfortunately the technical details of the paper are paywalled but from what available information is available in the article it seems this observed “jump” can still be made consistent with a classical model.

Notice in the article it is a “qubit” device which samples the ring down hundreds of times during the 2 millisecond time constraint of the experiment. Each sample length for the qubit must then be less than 100th of a millisecond. Essentially each qubit sample must then measure enough vibrational energy per this fractional time unit to trigger a positive +1 reading in the qubit. Below this, the qubit cannot receive enough vibrational energy within each qubit sample’s <1/100ms time limit to trigger a positive reading. Even if the resonating device  were still vibrating and producing the ring down as its vibrations declined gradually in strength.

In other words there still can be a classical ring down occurring from the resonator in the experiment but the qubit measuring device cannot measure the vibrations from the resonator when the resonators vibrational energy decreases to below the qubits detection threshold for each of the qubit samples <1/100ms time length. The qubit needs at least a certain amount of energy to trigger a 1 reading. Below that it will trigger a zero reading even if the resonator is still vibrating slightly.

No quantum theory is needed to describe the classical ring down of a resonating system. It’s just that the “quantum” device or “qubit” cannot measure resonant energy below a certain energy threshold during the time threshold constraint imposed on it by its <1/100millisecond sample time length.

Photon from GRB travelled 2 billion light years, impossible under current theory.

In a recent article apparently an impossibly high energy photon was “observed” to have travelled 2 billion light years before being observed here on earth. Currently theory has GRB’s as massive cosmic explosions. Yet since the 90’s this model has consistently failed to predict each new set of GRB observations.  The reason for this consistent record of failure of GRB theory lies as usual with relativity theory. The theoretical backbone of all faked current and past GRB models.

However this problem does not occur if one assumes (the well observed fact) that light is wave only and travels at c only relative to its source then all of the last 100 or so years of failed predictions from black hole, Big Bang  and gammaray bursts theories can be avoided. As pointed out numerous times here on this blog.

Because if one ignores the false assumptions of relativity and its misguided progeny the Big Bang theory, then a GRB can be explained, not as an explosion, but rather as a rapidly red shifting stellar source in a non expanding universe from great cosmological distances being observed here on earth. An optical illusion rather than a real explosion. An “explosion” model which incidentally  has consistently failed to model each new set of observed data on GRB’s year on year since the early 90’s when theorists thought they must be either nuclear tests by Russians or at best supernovae like explosions from within our own galaxy. When at the same time in the early nineties the red shifting optical illusion model described in this blog which predicted, among other consistently successful predictions, that they would appear to be isotropic in the sky and have self similar light curves extending to highest ( and lowest) energies possible. These latest “impossibly high” energies have been predicted for 35 years. And for two decades here on this blog. 

The big question is: How much longer will it be before the scientific community wakes up and realises that relativity and the Big Bang theory are pseudoscience at best.

For more details on a GRB Theory that for decades has successfully predicted all known GRB observations to date please read the following and other posts from this blog:

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

Little red dot in distant universe

 Little red dot in distant universe

Recent images from JWST have shown up little red dots ,LRD’s, which under the current standard BBT model defIies explanation. In a paper cited in this article a claim is made that these “dots” are avsort of early stage galaxy from the early universe which when redshifted to earth observer’s only show the central core due to a new unpredicted galaxy formation type peculiar only to the fantasy of a Big Bang expanding universe. As seen in Webb images. 

However I prefer the possibility that these dots are images of much more distant galaxies in a non expanding non BBT universe, coming from much greater redshifts than JWST’ s limit of z>15. Galaxies whose central core ultraviolet to X-ray part of their electromagnetic emissions have been redshifted to the visible part of the spectra and appear to us as little red dots. This possibility fits the other observation of LRD images which is they appear to have no emission in X-ray. That’s because the x ray part of the distant galaxies emission spectra of these very distant galaxies is now redshifted to ultraviolet and thev UV part of their emission spectra to visible. Appearing in Webb as “little red dots” with no apparent observable X-ray emission. And unusual UV profiles in earth based observations of these LRD’s.

However these purported redshifts attributed to these LRD images are usually only assumed and using these assumptions various data fitting models give an assumed redshift of between z = 4-15. On the face of it this isn’t enough of a high redshift to accommodate the alternative model based on a non expanding universe that I describe above. However in a 2023 paper on the spectral analysis of LRD’s it is admitted that these proposed z= 4-15 redshift values are only possible estimates and spectral fits based on various assumptions only. Including the assumption that the universe is expanding. 

MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circle: A suggested Annulus theory:

 MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circles: A suggested Annulus theory:

Regarding the recently discovered ORC phenomenon. It’s not clear but all the available reference on these rings suggests these various ORC are all the same size of 1 arc minute regardless of there assumed distance from the earth observer. If this is correct it’s odd that they would all just happen to be the same visual size in the observers image plane. Despite being attributed to galactic sources at various different cosmological distances. If so, this is a strange phenomena indeed. That aside;

However this paper has an image of an ORC (called ORC 1 in the paper in figure 1 from the paper) that is interesting. The assumption is that in this case (and generally with the other OCD’s ) the rings in this image are two intersecting expanding circles of some sort of ejecta rings that are orthogonal to each other. And that these expanding thin circles are actually “bubbles”. But because the bubbles ejecta density is relatively thin we only see the edge of each bubble ring where the overall density is greatest. The problem with this model is that in the above cited Norris et al figure 1 image of ORC 1 the bubble rings are not perfect circles. Which they would have to be if they were just the optically more dense edge of each of the two bubbles. In other words the ORC 1 "rings" could not be caused by expanding bubbles of ejecta, because they do not appear to us in the image as two perfectly circular overlapping rings. Something they would have to be to be explained by the usual bubble ejecta theory. Note in the cited ORC image the rings are flattened elipses Not perfect circles. 

Annulus explanation

To explain ORC-1 using the usual bubble ejecta model mentioned in various different reference and particularly in Norris et al, my idea is that, in this case at least, these are two seperate ejecta bubbles expanding out from two seperate slightly offset central sources. Each source separated by a small distance on the image plane. We see only the circular rings of the edge of the bubbles where the ejecta is more optically dense. And that these two expanding spherical bubbles are overlapping with each other and forming a third internal expanding annulus ring (as shown in the illustration below) as they expand. Rather than a two separate flattened expanding rings from the same source that are orthogonal to each other as is usually interpreted from the cited image.

If one studies the image from the paper, the outer slightly flattened elipse is in fact a combination of the visible edges of 2 separate circular ejecta bubbles. And the internal orthogonally skewed ring is in fact the annulus ring denoting where the two seperate bubbles interact orthoganally with each other. Indicating that these are two seperate bubble shockwaves of ejected material with a third internal annulus ring where the two intersect. 

Of course the problem here is that the coincidence of two seperate neighbouring bubbles erupting at the same time is statistically pretty small. However it’s possible that this small statistical probability explains why this type of ORC 1 observations as described in the Norris et al paper are fairly uncommon.

Dark energy survives major challenge

Introduction 

In 2025 a group of theorists claimed the evidence for acceleration of the universe via dark energy in the SN1a data didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Their research suggested that the expansion of the universe might no longer be speeding up and offered a different mathematical solution to the apparent “acceleration” problem first mooted by Reiss and others a few decades ago. However an even more recent paper (Still accelerating: type Ia supernova cosmology is robust to host galaxy age evolution. Wiseman, Reiss et al 2026.) with authors including Reiss, one of the the original proponents of imaginary acceleration, argued this 2025 paper refuting acceleration was based on an incorrect analysis.

Separate to this It’s amazing how critics say that any paper that doesn’t supply enough “maths” does not contain acceptable levels of theoretical  ‘proof’ to publish. Yet these same maths obsessed theorists will ignore the fact that endless “acceptable” peer reviewed published papers with pages and pages of maths and formulae will end up being subsequently rejected as erroneous and not acceptable as theoretically acceptable anyways. Despite having initially claimed having so much maths in these papers confers proof. (Proven as they prefer to say). Probably 99 % of these math riddled papers proving various erroneous now rejected concepts and published in the last century have been subsequent rejected as nonsense theory by the same establishment theorists who claim that endless pages of maths confers instant acceptabilty for publication regardless of how ridiculous the theoretical concept proposed in the paper actually is. Give a theoretical physicist an orange and with enough pages of maths, he can claim it’s actually an apple.

Anyways to get back to this tit for tat about the imaginary Big Bang acceleration debate: Its worth pointing out that in fact despite endless fiddling of the evidence with maths, the acceleration and expansion problem is theoretically unsound as the acceleration first mooted by those theorists including Reiss in the 90’s is ignored the fact that the SN1a data sourced from the SCP actually shows no expansion at all! As shown by the analysis in this chi squared maths page. 

And so the apparent acceleration claimed by Reiss and others was an attempt to try and explain why the non expanding data seemed to fit less and less well with data from ever higher and higher redshifted SN2a data in the BBT expanding model.

Summary

Essentially the SN1a data is not time dilated at all. As this analysis shows. Fortunately for theorists, it turned out that at low redshifts and with arbitrary tweaking of the luminosities of the Hubble Space Telescope SN1a data a fit of sorts to an expanding model was  possible. Although as this analysis shows the theorists forgot to control test the data with a z=0 chi square fitted model. If they had done this as the cited analysis shows, they would have found that the SN1a data fits as well and better to a non expanding model than to any expanding BBT model. And so when even higher redshifted data was fitted to their expanding model by theorists it failed to show the expected increased time dilation at these ever higher redshifts, as can be expected seeing as the universe isn’t expanding at all.

To account for this increasing lack of any observed time dilation at all in the very high redshifted data, theorists like Reiss and Wiseman pretend that the extra dilated time dilated lightcurve is still there but it’s just too faint to be seen! And they argue that the reason why they think the very hi redshifted dilated lightcurve is still there but can’t be seen is because an Accelerated expansion has placed them even farther away from our telescopes then originally expected in their original imaginary BBT model and therefore made them appear fainter than expected than in their original non accelerating BBT model

What flights of fantasy these maths obsessed theoretical physicists resort to to cover up the fact that astronomical observations of our non expanding universe continue to refute the BBT. 

Was a photon teleported across 270 meters in stunning quantum breakthrough ?

In a quote from an online article on a paper recently published in Nature the claim is that: “In simple terms, this means the properties of one photon were transferred to another through quantum teleportation.”

Unfortunately quantum teleportation is a fantasy suitable only for a Star Trek movie. A fantasy that still haunts the halls of University physics departments the world over ever since Albert invented his imaginary photon in 1905. A photon invented so as to legitimise false assumptions he made about space and time in his subsequent papers on SR and GR.

Because what actually happens in this experiment and thousands like this is far simpler and no Quantum magic is necessary if one analyses an earlier version of this type of entanglement/teleportation experiment. 

First of all, ignore QT. Quantum theorists pretend these type of experimental results cannot be explained by a classical non relativistic, non quantum model. They have made the same erroneous assumptions  for decades in experiments like the double slit interference experiment through to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments which this latest highly complex 2026 experiment seems to be based upon. But this is an erroneous assumption perpetuated for decades in ever more elaborate versions of what initially was a fairly basic experimental setup. Because once one can understand what is happening classically in the delayed choice quantum experiment one doesn’t need quantum magic teleportation to explain the the results of the delayed choice experiment or even for a more complex setup of relays of quantum dots as done in this recent 2026 experiment. Unfortunately it also means that the great future of quantum computers has not been confirmed by this “key step for future quantum communication networks” as the article and paper pretend it has. In fact they have spent/wasted a lot of money and time proving that if if one splits a source beam into two separate orthogonally polarised beams, and measures one of the two split beams polarised states. Then the other will always be orthogonally polarised. Regardless of how far away one measures it after it has left the beam splitter.

Analysis

In the cited experiment ‘Quantum teleportation with dissimilar quantum dots over a hybrid quantum network. Alessandro Laneve et al. 2026’ the photon, or it’s state was apparently magically transported 270 meters using relays of quantum dots. This ignores the fact that Classically the very basics of quantum teleportation can be explained even when the 2026 experiment manages to apparently transmit one or both paths down a path of 270 meters using a relay system of quantum dots etc. All they really did was what the original delayed choice experiment did which was read the polarisation state at one detector to find out the state at the other detector. 

Classically then, if the polarisation state is measured at one of the detectors then the state at the other 270 meters distant detector must always be opposite. That is if one was measured to be horizontal. The other must be  vertical. The fantasy in this paper and any other quantum entanglement teleportation style experiment is that measuring one state magically decides the other! 

The reality is that measuring one tells you the other must be opposite. And that these two opposite states were already decided when the original light source was split. As can be seen in the original delayed choice experiment that this latest 2026 experiment seems to be predicated upon. 

In the original delayed choice setup the light source is split into two orthogonal polarised coherent beams. Each beam being sent to a seperate detector to be measured as either vertical or horizontal polarised. Classically, the “choice” is made by the BBO detector when it splits the beam from source into two orthoganally polarised coherent beams.

Conclusions

The quantum fantasists pretend that this splitting made at the beam splitter ( in the original experiment this is made by the barium borate crystal) was actually magically decided later (!) at one of the detectors. The fantasy being that if one detector was measured to be horizontal polarised the other was magically created to be vertically polarised.

When will these quantum theorists stop practicing pseudoscience and magic? Probably when they realise in another few years that their silly quantum computers just never seem to work.!!