At first there was a tiny ball of infinitely dense matter, then it all exploded, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies we see today, or at least that's what physicists have been telling us for decades. However, recent theoretical research in physics has introduced a new perspective that suggests that the early universe might not be as early as previously thought. Instead, it could be part of a cyclical process in which the universe undergoes a series of bang-and-bounce cycles that have happened at least once and possibly in an infinite loop. Renowned physicist Brian Cox also challenges the Big Bang Theory, stating that something cannot come from nothing. The James Webb Telescope has made a remarkable discovery that contradicts the notion that the Big Bang marked the beginning of the universe. This revelation raises the question if the Big Bang was not the beginning of the cosmos, then what was? Scientists have a pretty good idea of the early universe we know and love, like the Big Bang Theory. According to this model, the universe was much smaller, hotter, and denser a long time ago than it is today. In that ancient Hell, 13.8 billion years ago, all the elements that make us up formed in the span of about twelve minutes. According to this theory, our entire universe, all the stars, galaxies, and everything else, was once the size of a peach and had a temperature of more than one quadrillion degrees. Surprisingly, this fantastic story is consistent with all current observations. Astronomers have studied everything from residual electromagnetic radiation from the early universe to the abundance of the lightest elements and have found that it all fits with what the Big Bang predicts. As far as we can tell, this is an accurate representation of our early universe.
