Yeah the big bang theory has long been something I've grappled with. Though its a concept that I have a pretty superficial understanding of (and perhaps I wouldn't struggle with it if I understood it better). The notion of some sort of singularity, in all its geodesic incompleteness, existing outside of anything, really weirds me out
Basically, the big bang theory was based on Hubble Telescope observations in red shifts. As the universe expands, it stretches light waves. Longer light waves are more red, so galaxies that are furthest away should be the reddest because their wavelengths are the most stretched. (Think about the billions of years it would take light to reach us from those distant galaxies,
while their light is being stretched by the expanding universe.) Hubble noticed that the red shift was consistent at every distance, out to the limits of its observational power. However, the James Webb telescope is now finding galaxies beyond those limits whose red shift is of
smaller wavelengths than galaxies that are
closer to us, which does not line up with big bang theory. If the universe started as a singularity and then expanded, then the ages of galaxies should have a gradient at each layer of distance. Instead, we are finding galaxies with younger characteristics beyond what Hubble used to considered the
oldest layer. How can younger galaxies with a reduced red shift exist beyond the oldest galaxies with the most red shift if the universe started at one point and expanded outward symmetrically?
Also... the shapes of galaxies are important. More distant galaxies were the first to form when the universe was created (under big bang theory), and they tend to have characteristic shapes. Newer galaxies tend to be more spiral, while older ones tend to lose their spiral shape and become more globular or diffuse. They're finding spiral galaxies really far out, along with other shapes reminiscent of
newer galaxies, which does not align with the big bang theory.
There are other discrepancies, but the science is too complicated to go into here. The scientific community is kind of flipping out because the current paradigm is now under heavy scrutiny. This is why people should not put so much faith into scientific theories. A theory is only the dominant view until prove to the contrary arises, which could happen at any time. People need to stop talking like theories are the almighty truth for all time and use it to attack opponents. The truth is that our view of the universe is unfolding and it's super complicated.
What I'm personally wondering is if what we have been observing under Hubble, although
really far out (billions of light years), is still "local", and there is a much, much bigger universe beyond even that "local" universe that has a different shape and diversity of galaxies. Kind of like how we have local galaxy groups (which we are part of) that move in relation to each other. Maybe there are huge arms of the universe that have localized properties within an even greater universe that is beyond our observation. In other words, what we have been observing as "expanding" is our
local universe and does not apply to the greater universe. i.e. there are different
enormous pockets of expansion and contraction in the larger universe. It's unfathomable, mostly because most of the universe is empty (lacks matter or energy), so we don't even know what forces would be involved in orchestrating all that.
A much bigger part of my thought process is that maybe it's more likely that we are looking out at something that will always be beyond our comprehension. The universe may not even have a beginning, or may not conform to other rules of our linear thought process, which is something the human mind can't handle. Most of our mathematical models are based on symmetry and linearity, as well as the conservation of information, but it may not even be true at the higher order of the universe. Black holes are challenging both general and special relativity for this reason. Information goes into them but then it doesn't come out in any recognizable form.
My vague sense is that humans are still fairly backward in how they conceptualize things. Internally, we compare ourselves to how we were thousands of years of ago and call it a major progression, but it's probably more like a grain of sand in an hourglass.
