Rongqing Dai Abstract The success of the James Webb Space Telescope propelled the debate surrounding the Big Bang theory to new heights, and the opponents of the the Big Bang theory generally confuse two distinct concepts: Big Bang as a philosophical notion and Big Bang for the existing standard cosmological theory. In this short essay, we will discuss the meaningfulness of the philosophical notion of Big Bang and the root cause of the flaws in the existing standard cosmological theory. Keywords: Big Bang, Standard Cosmological Model, Origin of Universe, Small Bangs, Philosophy 1. Background --- The Linguistic Confusion The success of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has not only expanded humanity’s understanding of the universe but also propelled the debate surrounding the Big Bang theory to new heights (e.g. Viel 2025[[1]], Tipikin 2022[[2]], O’Callaghan 2022[[3]], Zeldovich 2023[[4]], Dai 2024[[5]]).Unfortunately, however, this debate is rife with confusion, often confusing two distinct concepts: Big Bang as a philosophical notion and Big Bang for the existing standard cosmology theory. Clearly, like many philosophical misunderstandings in human history, this Big Bang related confusion stems from linguistic bewilderment caused by the shared use of the term Big Bang. For the general public, the term “Big Bang” is most likely to signify a philosophical concept—that our universe originated from a violent explosion of an extremely high-density source (which can be conceptualized as a singularity); but for the physics community, the term “Big Bang” is more likely to signify the existing standard cosmological theory. The general public usually doesn't judge whether the Big Bang based cosmological theory is correct or not, simply because they know very little about it and therefore don't care about the theory; however, many physicists try to deny the significance of the Big Bang notion not because of the notion itself but rather because the Big Bang based cosmology theory has some obvious flaws. The obvious reason behind this is that they are not able to distinguish between the Big Bang notion and the Big Bang based cosmological theory, which undoubtedly stems from their collective indifference to the importance of philosophy in modern society. 2. The Meaningfulness of Big Bang as a Philosophical Concept The Big Bang is a plausible philosophical concept because without it, numerous Small Bangs would be needed to explain the origins of all stars (such as our Sun). As long as we accept the modern scientific theory that stars like the Sun consume fuel to emit light, and that the amount of fuel is finite, we are forced to confront the conclusion that the life of any star will eventually end. This logically leads to the conclusion that stars did not exist in the universe indefinitely, but rather all came into being at some points in the past. With this knowledge we will naturally face such a question: how did the stars come into existence in the past? The notion of Big Bang provides a very feasible answer to the above question: the entire universe originated from a single source with extremely high concentration, which can be conceptualized as a singularity. With this core concept, it becomes easy to further speculate how stars and galaxies form, based on a very well established and reasonable theory in physics. In short, after the Big Bang, the universe expanded rapidly, and high-energy matter turned into so-called baryons, which subsequently formed stars, galaxies, and all other celestial bodies. Even if the notion of Big Bang is rejected, the question of how stars were formed in the past still remains. When a single origin is ruled out, people have to propose many, or more accurately, countless origins of stars and galaxies; in other words, they need to replace the notion of Big Bang with the notion of countless Small Bangs. Some Big Bang opponents argue that they can solve this problem by assuming the universe is in a continuous self-circulating process. However, unfortunately, their wild imagination lacks any empirical observational support, while the theory of cosmic expansion has received strong support from astronomical observations over the past century; and the Big Bang notion is a natural extension of the theory of cosmic expansion. 3. The Problematic Standard Cosmological Model Based on the notion of Big Bang, the physics community proposed a more detailed cosmological model with a complicated mathematical framework known as the standard cosmological model. For decades, many scholars have questioned this model, especially after some new discoveries from JWST depicted a picture of the early universe that is drastically different from the standard model. While many opponents of the Big Bang theory have made the discrepancies between the new findings of JWST and the standard cosmological model sound like a big surprise, it is not surprising at all. The reason is simple: the standard cosmological model, based on the notion of Big Bang, is not a simple replication of the notion of Big Bang, but rather a forced fusion of the notion of Big Bang with the existing physics, which is inherently problematic. As Dai (2023) [[6]] points out, the mere fact that the Big Bang based standard model of cosmology is constructed using special relativity is enough to make it problematic, because special relativity itself is wrong. Ironically, opponents of the Big Bang theory focus on denying the Big Bang as a notion for the origin of the universe, while largely ignoring the theoretical flaws in the foundation of the problematic standard model of cosmology which is the existing theoretical system of physics. They are just philosophically lost. 4. Final Remarks The flaws in the existing standard cosmological model have led to questioning of the notion of Big Bang, which once again demonstrates how a weak collective philosophical capacity will take a toll of the scientific exploration of Earth’s civilization. Of particular note is this reminder that humans are easily trapped in linguistic pitfalls, not only individually but also communally.
4.1. A clarification about the essence of the philosophical notion of Big Bang Regarding the essence of the notion of Big Bang, there is a thorny point that needs clarification: when the standard cosmological model presented the notion of Big Bang, it set a premise that the entire space-time expanded from a singularity. However, for the basic philosophical notion of Big Bang as expounded in this article, this assumption is an unwanted burden. The concept of space-time in the standard cosmological model originates from special relativity, which incorrectly links space and time through motion. As I have mentioned sometimes earlier, I have no compelling reason to deny the possibility of some hidden connection between space and time, but I am certain that even if such a connection does exist, it is not maintained through motion as described by special relativity. 4.1.1. Concerning the nature of space Even if we reduce space-time to space only in the abovementioned assumption, it is still a far stretching imagination without any observational support and thus an unnecessary extra burden in explaining the origins of stars and galaxies. 4.1.2. Concerning the nature of time Furthermore, with the kinematic unification of space and time through motion into the so-called space-time in special relativity, the standard model of cosmology also claims that time was created in the Big Bang, which is also a baseless and far-fetched claim, and thus needs to be stripped off from the philosophical notion of Big Bang as discussed in this short essay. 4.1.3 Conclusion Therefore, to conclude the discussion of this short essay, it is necessary for me to make it clear that the philosophical notion of Big Bang as elaborated in this article is a natural extension of the expansion of the universe, which includes all celestial bodies, whether space itself is finite and constantly expanding, or static and infinite. In the meantime, we do not have any reason to assume that time was created by the Big Bang. 4.2. A personal clarification By the way, I was surprised to see some online comments saying I oppose the theory of an expanding universe. In fact, I have never opposed the idea of an expanding universe; on the contrary, I have been a proponent to the idea that the universe is constantly expanding. Here by "expanding universe", I mean the expansion of the universe comprising all its contents, whether the space containing the universe is finite and expanding, or static and infinite. End Notes
[[1]] Viel, D. (2025). James Webb. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/144434468/James_Webb [[2]] Tipikin, D. (2022). Energy-matter cycle (aka water cycle on Earth) instead of Big Bang idea. How energy is converted back to matter. [[3]] O'Callaghan, J. (2022). JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology. Retrieved from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jwsts-first-glimpses-of-early-galaxies-could-break-cosmology/ [[4]] Zeldovich, L. (2023). What the Webb Telescope Really Showed Us About the Cosmos’ Beginning. Nautilus. Retrieved from: https://nautil.us/what-the-webb-telescope-really-showed-us-about-the-cosmos-beginning-296282/ [[5]] Dai, R. (2024). When Philosophy is Disparaged. Scholars’ Press. Chp 15 Anti-Big-Bang Confusion, p52. ISBN: 978-620-6-77202-6. [[6]] Dai, R. (2023). What Has JWST Proved Wrong? Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/97886597/What_Has_JWST_Proved_Wrong
| 
