Look I accept things in science , but when the theory have not realistic assumption than I hang on the fence like bird waiting for new finding . Now some new proposal are showing up " many constants are not to constants "
Well, this thread is entitled Life on Earth. If you want to talk about The Big Bang, that should be the title, so that people who want to talk about Life on Earth can follow that thread, and people who want to talk about the BB can do that.
timojin: The quarks were there before the universe had cooled enough for them to combine into particles like protons and neutrons. When quarks in the early universe combined to form protons etc., that process did release energy, as you say. However, the universe was expanding rapidly enough for the average energy density to be falling despite this energy release. You ought not to judge it until you understand it better. Try to keep an open mind. The thing that makes the big bang more plausible than Creation is that the big bang theory matches (and explains) what we actually observe today when we collect data from the universe. In constrast, Creationism is a fraud that ignores a lot of the accumulated real-world data that has led us to our current scientific models. Regarding hand-waving: it is inevitable that you will not get all the details about the big bang theory on a forum like this. To get a really good understanding, you'd need to learn quite a lot of physics at university level first, then study textbooks, research papers etc. What you get on a discussion forum is descriptions that try to give you a feel for what the theory says, but don't mistake what you get here for the theory itself. The theory is mathematical, quantitative, based on actual observations, and so on. It is in no sense "hand waving".
Which assumptions do you think are not realistic, in particular? Over the years, there have been many investigations of that kind of thing. What has that got to do with the basics of the big bang theory?
I don't want to bring religious sequence of event which agree with ancient history to acert credibility, but definitively there are between 800 to 300 Bc. The CERN experiment was very enlightening about the beginning , as to what could exist, but we don't know what energy levels it at the big bang, jet Janus 58 mentioned " In its earliest state, matter and energy were indistinguishable and even the fundamental forces were merged into one force." I am sure he did not invent that statement , he probably copied in some article.
They don't have a satisfactory quantum gravity theory, do they? Oh yeah, I agree. That's why I wrote that the universe began at a mathematical point or something like it (very small). It needn't be a literal mathematical point. I was just trying to give some kind of answer to Timojin's question about why people think of the universe's initial instant as very hot. The widespread attempts to understand the universe's initial instant in terms of particle physics certainly seem to presume a very energetic beginning. And the claims that space and time themselves originated in the big bang do seem to me to imply a literal singularity.
