Are there any scientists that view the Big Bang Theory as a massive event, but not the origin of the universe?

Question

It seems to me that the "BBT" is quite accepted by physicists as the origin of the universe. It seems to me that the scale of such an event has made scientists assume that the entire Universe began from that. Which is easy, considering we are talking about an infinite field of existence with countless galaxy clusters that are known to collide, each cluster containing hundreds of galaxies, that in turn, contain Billions of stars... That scale combined with the effect of super black holes who's mass is beyond imagination.. It just seems to me that we, as humans, try to understand things in a finite way- big and small, begining and end, etc. But we live in an infinite universe where such classifications completely lose meaning. Regardless of galaxy expansion or contraction, for as far as we can detect, doesn't it seem more likely to some scientists that an infinite universe never had a beginning?

Answer 1

"Our" Big Bang encompasses everything out to our Event Horizon, 13.7 billion lightyears away, and probably a good deal more as well, if theories of early inflation are correct. Therefore, everything we see or can see is part of a single Big Bang.

There may, however, be lots of Big Bangs, perhaps an infinite number. This is really just speculation, but not disprovable at this point.

Answer 2

Not really.

For a long time, the idea that the universe never had a beginning was indeed the only acceptable scientific theory for a long time. One of the reasons why the big bang became accepted was the discovery of background microwave radiation by Penzias and Wilson in the 50s, which only really made sense in light of the big bang. Now, there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches-- that is not something that present physics can predict or reject at this point. But, no serious physicist denies the existence of the big bang, although of course there are many questions still unanswered.

Answer 3

Just don't take it that way- big and small.

Scientists have found that the universe is expanding. They expand but their position in space remains same, i.e. if you look towards the north, there is pole star, even after a thousand years if you look pole star is in the north . It expands but relative to other bodies.

So if we go back in time the universe must have started from a point and due to expansion, its the universe we see now.

But, you do have a point. What if the universe didn't start from that point (BBT) but because of something it just started to expand? But this doesn't make any sense theoratically speaking. This leads to many questions like how?why?when?.

So the BBT has the upper hand.

Answer 4

There are quite a few string theories that predict time before the big bang (ie. string gas cosmology). These theories simply predict a universe warming to an incredibly dense state and then re-expanding as in the big bang. Modern big bang theory only describes the universe the instant after the singularity (some theories don't even require a singularity) and as has been said before it is phenomenally accurate in describing the universe after that time.

Answer 5

Plenty....the trouble with proving anything BEFORE the "Big Bang" is that there's no reference points we can view that go beyond our own cosmological confines.
But many beleive we're in a "multi-verse" with many "universes" like our own....string theory seems to allow for the existence of such a thing.

Answer 6

The scientific postulations of creation of the Universe which science alludes to ,is based on theory and solutions of mathematical equations.
We can continue to set up equations till we are blue in the face,however there will be never enough equations to explain how the Universe and its architecture was structured during its construction by our Creator.Let alone control system equations.

Answer 7

Look into M-Theory and other related theories.