There are theories that propose alternate explanations to the early universe than the Big Bang. But none of them hold a candle to TBB in explaining the preponderance of observations we have gathered. That doesn't render them invalid per se, just not useful or predictive. The latest nail in the coffin of alterante theories is the matchup between what TBB predicted early on for the CMB and what we observed after the prediction. It is about as perfect match as it is possible to get in physics. These are two datasets. One is prediction, the other is observation. You will need a much larger diagram before you will see any deviation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who told you that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The BB is overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of Astronomers and Cosmologists for many reasons, none the least being that it supports the four main observational pillars [1] The observed expansion of spacetime: [2] The relic heat from the BB, the CMBR at 2.73K: [3] The abundance of Lighter Elements: [4] Galactic and large scale structure: The BB is not invalidated by DM and DE, in fact DM supports the large scale structure aspect that otherwise may have been a problem for the BB. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_darkmatter.html "However, the modelling of this theory revealed that the 13.7 billion years which has elapsed since the Big Bang is actually nowhere near long enough for the huge structures of today’s universe to have developed, by the gradual process of gravity and increasing density, out of the tiny imperfections and clumps indicated by the COBE satellite. This could only have happened if there was, and/or is, much more matter in the universe than our current estimates of the matter tied up in visible stars. This has led to speculation about so-called "dark matter", an unknown substance which emits no light, heat, radio waves, nor any other kind of radiation (thus making extremely hard to detect)". DM of course was originally invoked to explain the rotation curves of galaxies . DE, another unknown factor was invoked to explain the acceleration in expansion rate and is thought to be a property of spacetime, perhaps the CC of Einstein fame. Inflation was another "add on" to explain the flatness, the horizon problem, homegeinity and isotropy. Even with these still not quite certain aspects, and apparent additions and fudge factors, the four main pillars do fit perfectly with the model, and of course, science/cosmology is always about improvement of our theories. The other aspects are that the BB fits in with GR and our particle zoo model, pretty comfortably, and of course no other model can come within a bull's roar of the current BB/Inflationary model of universal/spacetime evolution.
There are parts of it that are not yet well explained. For example, the first 10-43 second of the universe (that's the first .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second) is very theoretical; we have only a very dim view of what happened during that time, since the densities/energies are far beyond anything we can ever hope to replicate. From then on we have a gradually improving understanding. Starting at about 10-12 seconds (that's .000000000001 second) we enter the range that we can experimentally verify. At 10 seconds we are into fairly normal physics (high energy plasmas.) So far no one has come up with a better explanation.
Any mathematics can explain logically the observable universe can be squeezed into a point? Can you put an elephant into a cup? Can you?
As you have been already told, we know nothing about the time period of t=0 up to t+10-43 seconds............. What evolved from that point was space and time, and the observable universe.....Matter came later. NB: Observable universe/spacetime.
It would be helpful I think if you could give an example of evidence against the Big Bang hypothesis. I'm struggling to think of any well-known examples. I realise there are things that the Big Bang hypothesis in its current form cannot yet not account for, but that seems to me to be rather a different matter.
Yes. Would seeing the mathematics help you? This is neither logical nor mathematical. What kind of answer are you looking for?
Or a really strong gravitational field. Getting an elephant into a cup isn't even neutron star density, and what is going on inside a black hole is unknown, so this objection by Saint is a nothingburger.
Today we try and avoid such models, by introducing quantum gravitational effects that act like a repulsive gravity that can stop a universe from full gravitational singular collapse.