Problems of the Big Bang Theory

Problems of the Big Bang Theory

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1963-problems-of-the-big-bang-theory

Two main points concur with the Bible : 1. The universe had a beginning back some time ago, and 2. It formed by an initial expansion, or , as the bible puts it , it was stretched out. But besides these two main facts, that converge with the bible, there are many unanswered and open questions. The Big Bang theory is maybe the most successful and well-accepted fairy tale story of science. It's full of just so made up stories, the only thing that is probably true of it, is the fact that it predicts a absolute beginning of the universe and inflation.  Dark matter etc. was invented to explain the flatness problem etc.  

Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic: Antimatter gravity and the Universe 2019
Our current understanding of the Universe is both, a fascinating intellectual achievement and the source of the greatest crisis in the history of physics. We do not know the nature of what we call an inflation field, dark matter and dark energy; we do not know why matter dominates antimatter in the Universe and what the root of the cosmological constant problem is. 
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1911/1911.10942.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
1) Light elements: Lithium and Helium
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium and a large amount of helium.
Observation: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. The oldest stars near to us have less than half the amount of helium predicted. However, well-understood fusion processes in stars and reactions initiated by cosmic rays have accurately predicted the correct amounts of these and other light elements.
2) Antimatter-matter annihilation
Prediction: Since the intense radiation of the Big Bang would produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, mutual annulation of particle-antiparticle pairs would reduce the surviving matter density to around    10 -17 protons/cm3.
Observation:  the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction.
Big Bang fix to prediction: To try to fix this well-known vast gap, Big Bang theorists have proposed some unknown asymmetry between matter and antimatter which would lead to more production of matter. This has never been observed in laboratory experiments. A consequence of this predicted imbalance is the decays of the proton, initially predicted to decay with a lifetime of 1030 years. Large scale experiments have contradicted this prediction was well, with no evidence of decay at all.
3) Surface-Brightness
Prediction:  In any expanding universe, an optical illusion makes objects at high redshift appear larger and dimmer, so their surface brightness—the ratio of apparent brightness to apparent area—declines sharply with redshift.
Observation:  Based on observations of thousands of galaxies, surface brightness is completely constant with distance, as expected in a universe that is NOT expanding.
Big Bang fix to Prediction: After observations showed that the surface brightness dimming did not occur, Big Bang theorists hypothesized that galaxies were much smaller in the distant past and have grown greatly. But observations have contradicted this fix as well, showing that there have not been enough galaxy mergers for the growth rates needed. In addition, the ultra-small galaxies hypothesized would have to have more mass in stars than total mass, an obvious impossibility.
4) Too Large Structures
Prediction:  In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous. Structure starts small and grows over time
Observation:  As telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
5) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) and its Anisotropies
Prediction: (Initial): The CMB is a smooth relic of the initial radiation of the Big Bang
Observation:  The CMB is smooth on such large scales that , in a Big Bang there would be too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light. Big Bang fix to prediction: An unknown force, dubbed ”inflation” generated an exponential phase of the Big Bang that blew up the universe so rapidly that all asymmetries were smoothed away.
Additional observations: The actual very small anisotropies in the CMB were much smaller than those predicted by Big Bang theorists and additional fixes had to be added to the theory each time the observations became more precise, so that at present seven free variables—the density of dark matter, of ordinary matter, of dark energy and four additional fitting parameters—are needed to fit the observations. They still badly fail with some of the largest-scale anisotropies The latest crisis: Based on the data from the Planck satellite, the best fit to the CMB predicts a Hubble constant (the ratio of redshift to distance) in conflict with observations based on Supernovae. The best fits imply a curved universe, in conflict with the predictions of inflation for a flat universe. And they predict a density of dark matter far greater than any measurements derived from the motion of galaxies.
In contrast to the multiple contradictions of the Big Bang theory of the CMB with its “ultra precise” but wrong predictions, non-Big Bang processes provide a better explanation. The energy that was released in producing the observed helium in the universe equal the energy in the CMB. Any radiation become isotropized if it travels in a medium that scatters it. There is abundant observational evidence that microwave-frequency radiation is scattered in the intergalactic medium.
6) Dark Matter
Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.
Observation: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist. Extremely sensitive experiments on earth have failed to detect dark matter particles. In addition, dark matter, if it existed would create a viscosity effect on galaxies that would prevent the existence of the many long-lived groups of galaxies that are observed.
The response of most cosmologists to this growing body of evidence has, unfortunately, not been to decide the Big Bang theory has been falsified, but to add new “parameters” and hypotheses, like dark energy. The theory is now far more complex and speculative than the Ptolemaic epicycles that were destroyed by the Scientific Revolution. Each contradiction with observation is taken as a mere “anomaly” that does not undermine the theory as a whole. Strong peer pressure is applied against many of those who question the theory.
“It’s as if researchers are saying ‘I can see the Emperor’s elbow through his New Clothes,’ ‘I can see the Emperor’s knee though his New Clothes’ and so on,” says Lerner. “It is time to say: ‘The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.’ This theory has no correct predictions.” To replace the Big Bang, other researchers have elaborated, in peer-reviewed publications, alternative explanations of the generation of light elements and of the energy in the CBR by ordinary stars, and of the development of large-scale structures through the interaction of gravity and electromagnetic processes. “No one would claim that all the problems in cosmology have been resolved,” agrees Lerner, “but the evidence is consistent with an evolving, but non-expanding universe, which had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.”
https://lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

Chronology of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#The_very_early_universe

Cosmology and the Beginning of Time
The eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below.  
1. Planck Era     (All four known forces are unified.)
2. GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era    (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
3. Electroweak Era    (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
4. Particle Era    (particles begin to form)
5. Era of Nucleosynthesis    (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements)
6. Era of Nuclei   (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei)
7. Era of Atoms   (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)
8. Era of Galaxies   (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present)
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html

The very early universe
The first picosecond (10⁻¹²) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not apply; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the expansion of space itself and supercooling of the still immensely hot universe due to cosmic inflation.

The numerical value of tp (≈10−43s) is taken as the smallest physically meaningful quantity with respect to time. The distance corresponding to one Planck time unit is the Planck length lp= (ℏG/c3)½≈ 10−33cm, which also is taken as the smallest physically meaningful quantity with respect to length. 1

Inflation
Mike Wall The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? October 21, 2011
Scientists think they can pick the story up at about 10 to the minus 36 seconds — one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second — after the Big Bang. At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.
https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

Ethan Siegel Why Cosmic Inflation's Last Great Prediction May Fail Jan 7, 2016
If the measured value for ns stays what it's thought to be right now, and after a decade we've constrained r < 10-3, then the simplest models for inflation are all wrong. It doesn't mean inflation is wrong, but it means inflation is something more complicated than we first thought, and perhaps not even a scalar field at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/07/why-cosmic-inflations-last-great-prediction-may-fail/?sh=64422b7c7227

Steve Nerlich Cosmic coincidence SEPTEMBER 5, 2011
Inflationary era – a huge whoomp of volume growth driven by something or other. This is a very quick era lasting from 10-35 to 10-32 of the first second after the Big Bang.

Problems with the cosmic inflation hypothesis at the beginning of the universe
1. The Big Bang was the first and most precisely fine-tuned event in all of the history of the universe. It had it to be adjusted to permit the right expansion rate, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between contraction and expansion, or it would have expanded too fast, and produced an unlimited expansion, and a void, lifeless universe, or it would have recollapsed back to a singularity, a Big Crunch. But also many different parameters had to be set just right in the first instants, right after the first nanosecond or two, in order to form stable atoms, or it would also be void of stars, planets, chemicals, and life. 
2.  The Lambda-CDM model, composed of six parameters, is a parameterization of the Big Bang. The standard model of particle physics contains 26 fundamental constants. A variety of physical phenomena, atomic, gravitational, and cosmological, must combine in the right way in order to produce a life-permitting universe.
3. Inflation is supposed to provide a dynamical explanation for the seemingly very fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard model of cosmology. It faces however ist own problems. There would have to be an inflation field with negative pressure,  dominating the total energy density of the universe, dictating its dynamic, and so, starting inflation. It would have to last for the right period of time.  And once inflation takes over, there must be some special reason for it to stop; otherwise, the universe would maintain its exponential expansion and no complex structure would form. It would also have to be ensured that the post-inflation field would not possess a large, negative potential energy, which would cause the universe to recollapse altogether. Inflation would also have to guarantee a homogeneous, but not perfectly homogeneous universe. Inhomogeneities had to be there for gravitational instability to form cosmic structures like stars, galaxies, and planets. Inflation would require an astonishing sequence of correlations and coincidences, to suddenly and coherently convert all its matter into a scalar field with just enough kinetic energy to roll to the top of its potential and remain perfectly balanced there for long enough to cause a substantial era of “deflation”.  It would be far more likely, that the inflation field would drop its energy rather than be converted into baryons and ordinary matter, dump its energy into radiation.  The odds to have a successful, finely adjusted inflaton field are maximally one in a thousand at its peak and drop rapidly. There is no physical model of inflation, and the necessary coupling between inflation and ordinary matter/radiation is just an unsupported hypothesis. 
4. Designed setup is the best explanation for the life-permitting conditions at the beginning of the universe. 




The period of inflation, during which time the Universe increased in size by a factor of ~1050 is not predicted by Big Bang theory. Without it, however, the Universe would have had to have been relatively large just after the Big Bang.
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/b/big+bang

Paul Davies The Goldilocks Enigma: why is the universe just right for life?  page 76 2006
Inflation is a very attractive idea, and most cosmologists are sold on it. However, a crucial issue is how it came to an end. How would the universe have extricated itself from stupendously rapid runaway expansion? Guth suggested that the inflaton field was inherently unstable and was thus condemned to a fleeting existence. He proposed that it decayed away after only about 10 -32 s, following which the universe would resume its normal, decelerating expansion. This duration doesn’t seem very long, but such is the rate of inflation that in 10 -32 s the universe would have ballooned out by a huge factor. Any matter present before inflation would have been diluted to a negligible density, leaving the universe effectively empty—a vacuum. Obviously, a vacuum isn’t a good description of the universe today, or even at one second. Where, then, did all the matter—the electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on—come from, once inflation had ceased? Once the general idea of inflation had entered cosmology, it was there to stay. Guth’s original theory, however, contained a fatal flaw—the so-called graceful exit problem. The decay of the inflaton field is a quantum process, so its initiation is subject to the usual unpredictable quantum fluctuations. As a result, it would decay at different times in different places, in the form of randomly distributed bubbles—bubbles of space, that is, in which the inflaton field had decayed, surrounded by regions of space where it had not. The energy given up by the decayed inflaton field would be concentrated in the bubble walls. Bubble collisions would release this energy, as heat, but the process would be utterly chaotic and generate as much inhomogeneity as inflation was designed to remove. These shortcomings were addressed by a number of distinguished cosmologists who found the idea of inflation compelling
https://3lib.net/book/5903498/82353b

MICHELLE STARR This Is The Most Exciting Crisis in Cosmology AUGUST 2020
The current rate of this expansion is called the Hubble constant, or H0, and it's one of the fundamental measurements of the Universe. If you know the Hubble constant, you can calculate the age of the Universe. You can calculate the size of the Universe. You can more accurately calculate the influence of the mysterious dark energy that drives the expansion of the Universe. And, fun fact, H0 is one of the values required to calculate intergalactic distances.
However, there's a huge problem. We have several highly precise methods for determining the Hubble constant... and these methods keep returning different results for an unknown reason. Today, the difference between the two values, known as the Hubble tension, may not seem like a large number - just 9.4 percent.
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-can-t-figure-out-how-fast-the-universe-is-expanding-here-s-why

But cosmologists are yet to figure out wherein lies the cause of this discrepancy. The most obvious problem would be one of calibration, but its source remains elusive.

Sciencedan Failed Predictions of the Big Bang November 17, 2015
https://scienceandevidence.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/bigbang/

A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (Cosmology statement) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org[/size], and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as: ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’ ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’ ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

New Scientist An Open Letter to the Scientific Community May 22, 2004
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
cosmologystatement.org

The Big Bang's 15 Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict
Physics tells us that our current understanding is wrong. Cosmologists would rather invent dark matter than admit they're wrong. A survey of the motion of stars near us has determined that there is no dark matter in our vicinity (In spite of the fact we are in one of those spiral galaxies). And then there's dark energy to explain why the universe is observed to be accelerating in expanding, which physics doesn't account for. More likely, everything cosmologists think they know is wrong. As far as big bang predicting the relative abundance of elements, that is a lie. It doesn't predict it, the numbers have been carefully selected to match what is observed. But there's still a problem... there should be 3 times as much lithium as observed. Or, more likely, the Big Bang is simply wrong. The big bang assumes homogeneity and the cosmological constant. Every year, it seems, a larger superclusters or larger void is discovered, forcing homogeneity to larger and larger extremes. Meanwhile, in the Cosmic microwave background, major areas of variation in temperature (called lobes) align perfectly with the Earth's orbital plane, and equinoxes, which defies the cosmological principle. Once again, it is more likely they got it wrong. Physics is telling astronomers and cosmologists they're wrong about these things, but instead of listening, they're making up new forces and new terms (inflation is another one) to try and force it to fit.
http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions#antimatter

Gabriele Veneziano The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time February 1, 2006
NEVERTHELESS, the properties of the Milky Way are basically the same as those of distant galaxies. It is as though you showed up at a party only to find you were wearing exactly the same clothes as a dozen of your closest friends. If just two of you were dressed the same, it might be explained away as coincidence, but a dozen suggests that the partygoers had coordinated their attire in advance. In cosmology, the number is not a dozen but tens of thousands--the number of independent yet statistically identical patches of sky in the microwave background. One possibility is that all those regions of space were endowed at birth with identical properties--in other words, that the homogeneity is mere coincidence. The other, that the Universe was created by God. Neither proponents of loop quantum gravity nor String theory have been able to solve the riddle.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

The proof of the failure of the Big Bang theory
1. There are many problems with the Big Bang theory as explanation for the moons, stars, and planets.
2. That such a large structure could form so quickly  calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time . . . . “A successful theory has to explain the extremes,” said Williger. (Discovery News Online, Gerard Williger of NOAO,  01/09/2001)
3. Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers detected a new galaxy bright with stars almost as old as the big bang.  In the Science Daily magazine this galaxy, with redshift 7.6, was called the “strong contender for the galaxy distance record.” According to theory, stars did not form till the end of the “dark ages” about 400,000 years after the big bang.  Young galaxies emerging from the fog of particles might have had enough energy to evaporate the fog and bring the first stars to light, the article says.  Still, to see a galaxy so soon after the dark ages was unexpected.  An astronomer from UC Santa Cruz said, “We certainly were surprised to find such a bright young galaxy 13 billion years in the past.”  The current age estimate for the whole universe is 13.7 billion years. (Feb. 13, 2008 — The NASA/ESA)
4. In the June 2001 issue of Astronomy Magazine, astrophysicist Mark Sincell lists “The Eight Greatest Mysteries of Cosmology:”
a. How multidimensional is the universe?  (We don’t understand gravity.)
b. How did the universe begin?  (How did an explosion produce such smoothness?)
c. Why does matter fill the universe?  (There should be an equal part of antimatter[1].)
d. How did galaxies form?  (“The details are devilishly difficult to understand.”)
e. What is cold dark matter ?  (What is the other 95% of stuff that must be out there?)
f. Are all the baryons assembled in galaxies?  (Astronomers have only found a tiny fraction of what they expect.)
g. What is the dark energy?  “Physicists have tried to calculate the observed dark-energy density from accepted theories of physics, but their results don’t jibe with reality.  So far, the computed value is roughly 10^60 times greater than the observed value.  (Others say the number could be off by a factor of up to 10^130, but let’s not quibble over the details.)”
h. What is the destiny of the universe?
Some answers are known but mostly cosmologists really don’t know very much at all. 
a. For instance, inflation is still the rage, but the author says: “What drove inflation?  Nobody knows.  Physicists have suggested different models to describe the inflating universe, but all the solutions are mathematical conveniences with no particular physical basis.” 
b. Regarding dark energy, “The biggest problem with this idea is that no one has any idea what dark energy is.  ‘So far, all we’ve been able to do is name it,’ says [Michael] Turner.  ‘It could be the energy associated with nothing [sic!], or the influence of hidden spatial dimensions.’”
5. The only sound and logical theory of cosmic creation, a cosmos that works perfectly like a huge Swiss watch, is intelligent design. When there is intelligent design there must have been an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling and willing. That person all men call God. He did it by emanating the atoms, somewhat similar to a Big Bang or Outflow, and controlling these atoms into their specific places in the cosmos.
6. Just as an engineer is rather at home or on holiday then in his office, similarly God transcendent is at home in heaven and God immanent is on duty creating or evolving the cosmic prison house or the material world for us, spirit souls.
7. –  Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
8. God most probably exists.
NOTE:
1. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge.
2. A baryon is a composite subatomic particle made up of three quarks (as distinct from mesons, which comprise one quark and one antiquark).
3. Cold dark matter (or CDM) is a hypothetical form of matter that interacts very weakly with electromagnetic radiation (dark) and most of whose particles move slowly compared to the speed of light (cold). It is believed that approximately 80% of matter in the Universe is dark matter, with only a small fraction being the ordinary "baryonic" matter that composes stars and planets.





Guillermo Gonzalez Confirming the Big Bang: The Recent Decades March 7, 2019
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/confirming-the-big-bang-the-recent-decades/

[b]The Big Bang Never Happened[b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-B2hACS0dQ

1. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zna-2018-0110/html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html

M. J. Disney MODERN COSMOLOGY: SCIENCE OR FOLK TALE? 2006

So non-cosmologists are entitled to remain sceptical of the so called Precision version of Big Bang Cosmology even though it fits much of the data rather well, and some aspects of it, such as Expansion, are far more robust than others. Given the number of its free parameters [seventeen], so it ought. It may be healthier, as well as more exciting, to admit that we are surrounded by great mysteries which will provide challenges for generations to come. More fundamentally, as Daniel Boorstin the historian of science remarked: “ The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses. ” (19). If we are not appropriately sceptical about  cosmology today then the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress across all of extragalactic research for generations to come.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/HONR219Q/anticosmology7.pdf

BREAKING NEWS: Big Bang Could be in Big Trouble because of Wigner Crystals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZBTaZutsU

Redshift Anomaly of the 2292 MHz Radio Signal Emitted by the Pioneer-6 Space Probe as Multiple Interactions with Photo-Ionized Electrons in the Solar Corona
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=110532

The challenges in the Big Bang Theory


Out of nowhere, a singularity appeared, which formed into a small dense point. Problem - Quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity predict the formation of singularities, points where known laws of physics cease to be valid. However, there is no clear mechanism for transforming a singularity into a dense point. Gravity would be the only eventual mechanism, but at such small scales, quantum effects become dominant, and gravity alone would not be enough to explain the transition from a singularity to an expanding universe.

Space expanded rapidly. Problem - It is unclear what mechanism triggered and drove this rapid expansion of space. The Big Bang theory proposes a period of cosmic inflation, but the origin and cause of this inflation remain unknown.
Furthermore, the concentration of mass proposed in this theory should be so dense that it would remain a universal black hole forever. Intense gravity should prevent the expansion of space, unless some as yet unknown mechanism has counterbalanced this gravitational pull.

The intense heat caused by expansion produced protons, neutrons and electrons. Problem - Although the Big Bang theory explains well the production of elementary particles from the intense heat in the first moments of the universe, there are still gaps in our understanding of the fundamental processes that occurred during this period. For example, it is unclear how the symmetry between the fundamental forces was broken, allowing the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions to differentiate. Furthermore, the origin of the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the observable universe is still a mystery.

Space rapidly expanded. Problem - It is unclear what mechanism triggered and drove this rapid expansion of space. The Big Bang theory proposes a period of cosmic inflation, but the origin and cause of this inflation remain unknown. Additionally, the proposed concentration of mass in this theory should have been so dense that it would have remained forever as a universal black hole. The intense gravity should have prevented the expansion of space, unless some unknown mechanism counterbalanced this gravitational attraction.

The intense heat caused by the expansion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons. Problem - While the Big Bang theory explains well the production of elementary particles from the intense heat in the early moments of the universe, there are still gaps in our understanding of the fundamental processes that occurred during this period. For example, it is unclear how the symmetry between the fundamental forces was broken, allowing the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions to differentiate. Moreover, the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the observable universe remains a mystery.

The expansion followed extremely precise and fine-tuned mathematical formulas. If the universe had expanded less or more than 0.1%, there would be no life of any kind throughout the universe; the universe would either undergo a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or it would expand so rapidly that galaxies or stars could not form. Problem - What mechanism fine-tuned this expansion so that life could arise in the universe?

As the particles move outward, they slow down and begin to orbit each other. Problem - At this point, there is no matter beyond this growing stream of particles. What force would cause these particles to decelerate and change direction? Nowadays, objects slow down due to frictional forces, air resistance, etc. In a complete vacuum, particles would continue running outward linearly forever.

Gas clouds begin to condense to form stars. Problem - Gas cannot condense unless something causes it to condense. Gas only expands. In reality, stars can only explode.

The Big Bang supposedly produced only hydrogen and helium, with traces of lithium. Other elements were produced from these two. Problem - There is a "mass gap 5 and 8 of atomic mass." There are no stable atoms of mass 5 or mass 8. Protons and neutrons cannot be bound to a helium nucleus of mass 4.

First-generation stars, composed of hydrogen and helium, explode to produce stars with heavier elements. Problem - Stellar nucleosynthesis, which produces heavier elements through fusion processes in stars, is well-understood. However, there are still uncertainties regarding the specific conditions and mechanisms that lead to the production of certain elements, particularly those beyond iron in the periodic table.

Additionally, the initial abundances of elements in the early universe, as well as their distribution and evolution over cosmic timescales, are subjects of ongoing research and debate.

Here is a rewrite focusing on the core arguments against the Big Bang theory, with added punctuation:

The three main lines of evidence used to support the Big Bang theory are: 1) Cosmological redshifts, 2) The abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium, and 3) The cosmic microwave background radiation. However, the speaker argues that these do not necessarily mean the Big Bang is good science:

1) Cosmological redshifts - There are other cosmological models that can also explain redshifts of distant galaxies receding from us. 

2) Abundance of light elements - Some argue that the Big Bang model doesn't produce as good of a match with the observed abundances, specifically having trouble accounting for the amount of lithium.

3) Cosmic microwave background radiation - Although this was a successful prediction of the Big Bang model, the speaker questions whether there could be other explanations for this background radiation that don't require the Big Bang.

Beyond questioning the three main evidences, the speaker goes on to argue that upon closer examination, the Big Bang model is not just unsupported by good science, but is actually "bad science" and even "anti-science" if taken to its logical conclusions. Some of the issues raised include problems accounting for the first generation of stars forming from gas clouds, as well as denying fundamental assumptions required for science itself to work properly. The argument is that the Big Bang model ultimately fails scrutiny and that simpler explanations aligned with biblical creation provide a better framework.

Here is a continuation focused on the core arguments against the Big Bang theory, with added punctuation:

The speaker raises several issues that he argues show the Big Bang model is not just unsupported by good science, but is actually "bad science" and even "anti-science":

Fine-Tuning Problems: The conditions required for the Big Bang model to work are exquisitely fine-tuned, which the speaker argues is improbable without invoking intelligent design. Just as the Earth and sun exhibit incredible fine-tuning to support life, the initial conditions of the Big Bang require precise calibration of many parameters. 

Lack of Explanation for Inflation: Inflation was proposed as a "fix" to solve some of the Big Bang's problems, like the horizon problem and magnetic monopoles. However, the speaker points out there is no viable physical mechanism to explain how inflation could have actually occurred. The inflation field or "inflaton" is purely hypothetical with no empirical basis. Recent data is exacerbating the problems inflation was supposed to solve.

Nothing Can Create Everything: The speaker argues that having "nothing" create the entire universe from nothing violates a foundational principle of physics - that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. The claim that positive and negative energies can sum to "nothing" creating a universe is mathematically convenient but not physically realizable without an external source, which the universe definitionally lacks.

Ultimately, the speaker contends that the Big Bang model requires numerous ad-hoc rescuing devices like inflation that lack justification. Furthermore, the idea of the entire cosmos spontaneously arising from absolute nothingness is counter to the premises science is built upon. For these reasons, the Big Bang is portrayed not just as bad science, but as inherently "anti-science" when scrutinized closely.

Here is a continuation focused on the core arguments against the Big Bang theory as being "anti-science":

Reason 3: The Big Bang model, by invoking the multiverse, is contradicting itself by appealing to the supernatural which science disallows. The multiverse concept proposes an infinite number of unobservable universes that exist outside our own universe and the natural world we can study. By definition, anything outside the natural world is considered supernatural. However, science rejects supernatural explanations as unscientific. So the Big Bang theory is incoherent in dismissing biblical creation as invoking the supernatural, while itself requiring the supernatural multiverse concept. Some scientists criticize the multiverse as pseudoscience and fictional rather than based on empirical evidence.

Reason 4: The multiverse undercuts empirical testability, which is a core requirement of science. With an infinite number of unseen universes proposed, any observation can be accommodated by saying "well in another universe, it's different." This makes the theory unfalsifiable - no possible observation can contradict it. Scientists have criticized this lack of empirical testability as departing from the scientific method.

Reason 5: The theological/philosophical implications of the multiverse are quasi-religious. The idea of infinite universes containing infinite variations raises profound questions about concepts like infinite regress, absolute truth, certainty of knowledge, and even the significance of humanity amidst an infinity of parallel realities. The speaker argues these deep philosophical issues take the multiverse out of the realm of science into metaphysical territory more akin to religious belief systems.

In summary, the speaker contends that not only is the Big Bang model problematic science based on bad assumptions, but its need to invoke supernatural, unfalsifiable, infinitely-variable metaphysical realms like the multiverse renders it fundamentally "anti-science" - contradicting the philosophical grounds that science operates upon. From this perspective, biblical creation provides a more coherent and scientifically tenable framework.

According to the search results, the Big Bang model ultimately leads to absurd and self-refuting conclusions:

The idea of a "multiverse" with infinite universes arising from quantum fluctuations is invoked to try to explain the extreme fine-tuning of the constants and laws of physics in our universe. However, this leads to absurdities like time flowing backwards in half of those universes, technologically advanced dinosaurs existing on other planets, our universe being a computer simulation run by aliens, and even multiple layers of simulated universes nested within each other - all of which strain credibility and move into the realm of pseudoscience rather than testable science.[1]

More damningly, the Big Bang model itself predicts that it is infinitely more likely that we are not actually conscious observers in a real universe, but rather mere "Boltzmann brains" - random fluctuations of matter and energy in a void that by chance have the illusion of being self-aware beings with false memories of a universe around us. If this "Boltzmann brain" scenario is true, then there was no actual Big Bang that created a real cosmos, undermining the entire premise of the theory.[1]

The presenter argues that secular cosmologists are driven to such absurd conclusions in trying to avoid a cosmic beginning and divine Creator implied by the Big Bang. He contends that only a biblical worldview provides the rational foundations and justification for the orderly, comprehensible universe that genuine science presupposes and requires.[1]

Certainly! Let's break this down step by step and address the main points being made in this long argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNclw25jCc

1. **Uniform Pressure in a System**: 
   - In an ideal gas, molecules are in constant random motion, and the pressure is generally uniform throughout the system. Spontaneous fluctuations can happen but are usually small and transient.

2. **Spontaneous Fluctuations**:
   - The idea here is that while gas molecules can randomly clump together to form a denser region, this is highly unlikely. The larger and denser the clump, the more unlikely it is.

3. **Thermodynamic Behavior**:
   - When a dense clump forms, it will naturally dissipate to return to a state of uniform pressure due to the tendency of systems to move towards equilibrium (second law of thermodynamics).

4. **Improbability of Large Fluctuations**:
   - If you observe a dense clump, it’s more likely that you caught it during a momentary fluctuation rather than it having formed an even denser state previously. Larger fluctuations are exponentially less probable.

5. **Analogy to the Universe**:
   - The argument draws an analogy to the universe’s evolution. It's suggested that the highly structured and complex state of the current universe is unlikely to have come from a less complex state due to the principle of increasing entropy.

6. **Improbability of the Universe’s Current State**:
   - The idea is that if the universe’s complexity today is unlikely, it must have been even more unlikely 14 billion years ago. This implies the universe could not have just fluctuated into its current state without some guiding process or principle.

7. **Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis**:
   - The mention of a brain popping into existence with false memories (Boltzmann Brain) is used to illustrate that such an event, while extremely improbable, is still more probable than the entire universe spontaneously forming in its current state.

### Critical Analysis

1. **Fluctuations in a Gas**:
   - It is correct that while local fluctuations can happen, the probability of a large clump forming is exceedingly low. This aligns with statistical mechanics.

2. **Thermodynamic Equilibrium**:
   - The dissipation of a dense clump back to uniform pressure is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

3. **Cosmology and Entropy**:
   - The universe's evolution from a hot, dense state (Big Bang) to its current state involves increasing entropy. However, the formation of complex structures like galaxies, stars, and life does not violate this principle because localized decreases in entropy (like the formation of stars) are offset by increases elsewhere.

4. **Complexity and Initial Conditions**:
   - The argument seems to misunderstand how entropy and complexity relate. The early universe was in a low-entropy state with tiny quantum fluctuations, which under gravity, led to the formation of large-scale structures. This process is well-described by the Big Bang theory and cosmic inflation.

5. **Boltzmann Brains**:
   - The Boltzmann Brain argument is a philosophical thought experiment that highlights issues with certain cosmological models. However, mainstream cosmology does not suggest the universe spontaneously fluctuated into existence but rather evolved from well-understood initial conditions.

### Conclusion

The argument raises interesting points about probability and thermodynamics but conflates some concepts related to the universe's evolution. Modern cosmology provides robust models for the universe's development, explaining how complexity arises naturally from simple initial conditions without violating thermodynamic principles.

If you have specific points or questions about the argument, feel free to ask!

Problems with the early evolution of the universe

The Planck Era: The Briefest Moment of the Universe

Approximately 10^-43 seconds after the beginning of the Big Bang, a remarkable period known as the Planck Era occurred. During this incredibly brief timeframe, the four fundamental forces of nature—electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and gravity—were expected to possess equal strength. This suggests the possibility of their unification into a single fundamental force. However, our current understanding of this era remains limited, and various theoretical frameworks propose different scenarios to explain its dynamics. According to general relativity, a gravitational singularity is predicted to exist before the Planck Era. However, under such extreme conditions, the theory is expected to break down due to the influence of quantum effects. Physicists anticipate that a more comprehensive understanding of this epoch will emerge from proposed theories of quantum gravity, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity.



The Planck Era, which derives its name from the renowned German physicist Max Planck, represents the shortest conceivable unit of time in physics. It is a tribute to the immense complexity of the early universe. Our knowledge of the universe is constrained to this point because it marks the inception of the Big Bang itself. To comprehend the brevity of the Planck Era, it is essential to consider the scale involved. The Planck length, which measures approximately 1.616199 × 10^-35 meters, represents the distance that light would travel through a vacuum in this minuscule timeframe. Astonishingly, the duration of the Planck Era amounts to approximately 5.39106(32) × 10^-44 seconds. During this fleeting moment, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, cannot provide a complete description. The extreme energy densities and temperature regimes prevailing in the Planck Era necessitate a union of quantum theory and gravity, a realm yet to be fully explored. The quest to unravel the mysteries of this epoch drives theoretical physicists to seek a unified framework that can reconcile the fundamental forces and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the universe's earliest moments. While our knowledge of the Planck Era remains limited, ongoing research and the development of novel theoretical frameworks offer hope for advancing our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Exploring the Planck Era allows us to delve into the depths of cosmic origins, pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and revealing the remarkable intricacies that governed the emergence of our vast and diverse cosmos.

The Planck Era is a crucial stage where the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—are expected to have equal strengths. Achieving this precise balance among the forces necessitates an extraordinary level of fine-tuning. The fundamental constants and parameters governing these forces must be precisely adjusted to ensure their unification. One of the major challenges during the Planck Era lies in the breakdown of current theories, such as general relativity, when confronted with extreme conditions. This highlights the need for a unified framework that can reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity, known as a theory of quantum gravity. The search for mechanisms to explain this fine-tuning is speculative and often pursued within theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity.

The key explanatory problems

Breakdown of classical physics: During the Planck Era, the extreme energy densities and temperatures render our current theories of classical physics, such as general relativity, inadequate to describe the dynamics of spacetime and matter. This highlights a fundamental conflict between quantum mechanics and gravity at this scale.
Singularity problem: General relativity predicts the existence of an initial cosmological singularity before the Planck Era, where the laws of physics break down. However, singularities are considered unphysical, and our theories cannot provide a complete description of what transpired at or before this point.
Unification of fundamental forces: While the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear) are expected to have equal strengths during the Planck Era, suggesting a possible unification, we lack a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain how and why this unification occurred.
Initial conditions problem: The standard Big Bang theory does not address the fundamental question of what set the initial conditions for the universe, such as the precise values of fundamental constants, interaction strengths, and the incredibly low entropy state from which the universe emerged.
Quantum gravity challenge: Attempting to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity to accurately describe the Planck Era requires a theory of quantum gravity, which remains elusive despite ongoing efforts in areas like string theory and loop quantum gravity.

The core issue is that the extreme conditions of the Planck Era push our current theories of physics to their limits, exposing gaps in our understanding of the universe's earliest moments and the unification of fundamental forces. Resolving these explanatory problems requires a paradigm shift in our theoretical framework, one that can coherently merge quantum mechanics with gravity and shed light on the initial conditions that gave rise to our observable universe.

From the creationism viewpoint, the explanation for the explanatory problems surrounding the Planck Era and the extreme conditions present during the first moments after the Big Bang can be traced back to the idea of a transcendent source or Creator.  The existence of a Creator who exists outside the bounds of the physical universe and its laws can provide a resolution to these problems. The apparent unification of the four fundamental forces during the Planck Era is not a coincidence, but rather a consequence of the universe being born from a single creative event orchestrated by an intelligent source. This source established the conditions that allowed for the precise balancing of these forces at the universe's inception. The standard Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of the universe's initial conditions, such as the precise values of fundamental constants, interaction strengths, and the low entropy state. However, from a creationist perspective, these finely-tuned initial conditions were set by the Creator, who intentionally designed the universe to support the eventual formation of complex structures, including life. The difficulty in reconciling quantum mechanics with gravity is not an inherent flaw in our understanding but a consequence of our limited human perspective. The Creator, who exists outside the physical realm, is not bound by the limitations of our current theories and can ultimately provide a resolution to this conundrum. Perhaps the most significant advantage of the creationist perspective is the ability to attribute the origin of the universe's initial conditions to a transcendent source. This source, a divine Creator, is not constrained by the physical laws of the universe and can therefore establish the precise conditions necessary for the universe to unfold as we observe it today. From this viewpoint, the extreme conditions of the Planck Era and the apparent fine-tuning of the universe's fundamental parameters are not a coincidence or an unexplained mystery but rather a reflection of the intentional design and creative act of higher intelligence. The creationist explanation provides a framework for understanding the origin of these conditions, even if the specific mechanisms remain elusive to our current scientific understanding.

The Grand Unification Era (GUT)

From approximately 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang, an epoch known as the Grand Unification Era occurred. During this period, three out of the four fundamental forces—electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force—were believed to be unified as the Electroweak force. Gravity remained distinct from the Electroweak force until the end of the Planck Era. As of 2012, realistic models attempting to explain this era have become considerably complex. They often require the introduction of additional fields, interactions, or even extra dimensions of space. The main reason for this complexity lies in the challenge of producing observed fermion masses and mixing angles. Due to these difficulties and the lack of any observed evidence for grand unification, there is currently no widely accepted GUT model.



During the Grand Unification Era, three out of the four fundamental forces are expected to unify into a single force. Achieving this unification requires precise adjustments of various parameters and interactions. Models of grand unification face significant challenges when it comes to reproducing observed fermion masses and mixing angles. Additionally, the lack of empirical evidence for grand unification complicates the development of widely accepted GUT models.

The key explanatory problems during the Grand Unification Era (GUT)

Unification challenges: Achieving the unification of three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) into a single Electroweak force during the GUT era requires precise adjustments of various parameters and interactions. Current models struggle to reproduce observed fermion masses and mixing angles accurately.
Complexity of models: Realistic GUT models have become considerably complex, often requiring the introduction of additional fields, interactions, or even extra dimensions of space to account for the observed phenomena.
Lack of empirical evidence: Despite theoretical predictions, there is currently no widely accepted GUT model due to the lack of any observed experimental evidence supporting grand unification.

The fundamental challenge during the GUT era lies in developing a comprehensive theoretical framework that can successfully unify the three fundamental forces while accurately reproducing observed particle properties and phenomena. The complexity of the models required and the absence of direct empirical evidence make it difficult to arrive at a widely accepted GUT model.

From a creationist perspective, the unification of fundamental forces during the GUT era is a direct consequence of the universe's creation by a transcendent source or Creator. This divine intelligence intentionally designed the universe with the precise conditions and parameters necessary for the temporary unification of these forces at the early stages of the universe's evolution. The complexity of GUT models and the challenges in reproducing observed particle properties can be attributed to the limitations of our current scientific understanding, which is constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. The Creator, existing outside the bounds of the physical universe, is not subject to these limitations and can establish the conditions for the unification of forces in ways that may be beyond our current comprehension. Furthermore, the lack of empirical evidence for grand unification is not necessarily a limitation from the creationist perspective. The unification of forces during the GUT era may have been a transient phenomenon orchestrated by the Creator for specific purposes, rather than a permanent state observable in the present universe. The creationist explanation provides a framework for understanding the unification of fundamental forces during the GUT era as a deliberate act of higher intelligence, rather than an unexplained coincidence or a consequence of the laws of nature alone. This perspective acknowledges the limitations of our current scientific models while offering a broader context for understanding the early stages of the universe's evolution.

Electroweak Era

From approximately 10^-36 to 10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe had decreased enough to separate the strong nuclear force from the Electroweak force—the name given to the unified forces of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. This phase transition triggered a period of exponential expansion known as cosmic inflation. After inflation ended, particle interactions still possessed enough energy to create a large number of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons, as well as Higgs bosons.

In the Electroweak Era, the strong nuclear force separates from the Electroweak force, which necessitates fine-tuning of energy scales and phase transitions. Understanding the mechanisms behind the phase transition that triggers cosmic inflation and the precise conditions during this era remains a challenge. The origin and properties of inflationary fields are still under investigation.

The key explanatory problems during the Electroweak Era

Fine-tuning of energy scales: The separation of the strong nuclear force from the Electroweak force during this era required precise fine-tuning of energy scales and phase transitions, which remains a challenging aspect to fully explain.
Cosmic inflation mechanisms: Understanding the exact mechanisms behind the phase transition that triggered the period of exponential expansion known as cosmic inflation is an ongoing area of investigation.
Origin and properties of inflationary fields: The nature and properties of the inflationary fields responsible for driving the rapid expansion of the universe during this era are still not fully understood and remain an active area of research.
Particle production: Explaining the precise conditions that allowed for the creation of exotic particles, such as W and Z bosons, and Higgs bosons, during this era is a complex challenge for current theoretical models.

The Electroweak Era represents a crucial phase in the early universe, where the separation of fundamental forces and the onset of cosmic inflation led to a rapidly evolving and energetic environment. Developing a comprehensive theoretical framework that can accurately describe the fine-tuning of energy scales, the mechanisms behind phase transitions, the nature of inflationary fields, and the production of exotic particles during this era remains a significant challenge for modern physics.

From a creationist perspective, the intricate processes and fine-tuning observed during the Electroweak Era is attributed to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator. This divine intelligence established the precise conditions necessary for the separation of fundamental forces, the triggering of cosmic inflation, and the production of exotic particles. The challenges in fully understanding the mechanisms behind phase transitions, the origin and properties of inflationary fields, and the conditions for particle production can be seen as limitations of our current scientific models, which are constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. The Creator, existing outside the bounds of the physical universe, is not subject to these limitations and can orchestrate the unfolding of the Electroweak Era in ways that may transcend our current comprehension. Furthermore, the creationist explanation provides a framework for understanding the apparent fine-tuning of energy scales and the precise conditions necessary for the observed phenomena during this era. From this perspective, the delicate balance of parameters and the intricate processes are not mere coincidences or artifacts of the laws of nature alone, but rather a reflection of the intentional design and creative act of a higher intelligence. 

Inflation Era

From approximately 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang, the inflationary era occurred. According to inflation theory, this period was characterized by an extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe. As the inflation field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to the rapid expansion of space. This concept suggests that during the first (0.0000000000000000000000000000000004 seconds), the universe experienced exponential expansion, doubling in size at least 90 times. This expansion explains several properties of the current universe that are challenging to explain without an inflationary epoch. The swift expansion of space caused the elementary particles remaining from the Grand Unification Era to be thinly distributed across the entire universe. However, at the end of the inflationary era, the immense energy potential of the inflation field was released, repopulating the universe with a dense, hot mixture of quarks, antiquarks, and gluons, as it transitioned into the electroweak era. The Inflation Era involves a rapid expansion of the universe, requiring fine-tuning of the inflation field and its energy potential to match the observed properties of the cosmos. Explaining the origin and duration of inflation, as well as reconciling inflationary models with observational data, pose major challenges. The nature and interactions of the inflation field itself are still elusive.

The key explanatory problems during the Inflation Era

Origin and duration of inflation: Explaining the precise origin and the duration of the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the universe during the inflationary epoch remains a significant challenge for current theoretical models.
Fine-tuning of the inflation field: The inflation field responsible for generating the repulsive force that drove the rapid expansion of space during this era required precise fine-tuning of its energy potential and parameters to match the observed properties of the current universe.
Nature and interactions of the inflation field: Despite its crucial role, the fundamental nature and interactions of the inflation field itself are still not well understood and remain an active area of investigation.
Reconciling inflationary models with observations: Developing inflationary models that can consistently and accurately reconcile theoretical predictions with observational data from cosmic microwave background radiation and other cosmological measurements is an ongoing challenge.
Distribution of matter and energy: Explaining the mechanism by which the rapid expansion of space during inflation led to the observed thin distribution of elementary particles across the entire universe, while also accounting for the subsequent repopulation of the universe with a dense, hot mixture of quarks, antiquarks, and gluons, requires a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this era.

The Inflation Era represents a crucial phase in the early universe, where the rapid expansion of space and the energy potential of the inflation field played a pivotal role in shaping the observable properties of the current cosmos. Developing a comprehensive theoretical framework that can accurately explain the origin, duration, and mechanisms of inflation, while reconciling models with observational data, remains a significant challenge for modern physics.

From a creationist perspective, the processes and fine-tuning observed during the Inflation Era are attributed to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator. This divine intelligence established the precise conditions necessary for the rapid expansion of space, the fine-tuning of the inflation field, and the subsequent distribution and repopulation of matter and energy across the universe. The challenges in fully understanding the origin and duration of inflation, the nature and interactions of the inflation field, and the reconciliation of inflationary models with observational data can be seen as limitations of our current scientific models, which are constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. The Creator is not subject to these limitations and can orchestrate the unfolding of the Inflation Era in ways that may transcend our current comprehension. Furthermore, the creationist explanation provides a framework for understanding the apparent fine-tuning of the inflation field's energy potential and the precise conditions necessary for the observed phenomena during this era. The creationist viewpoint offers a broader context for understanding the Inflation Era by attributing the observed phenomena and challenges to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator, rather than seeking explanations solely within the constraints of our current scientific models.

Quark Era

From approximately 10^-12 seconds to 6/10 seconds after the Big Bang, the Quark Era took place. During this era, all particles are believed to acquire mass through the Higgs mechanism, in which the Higgs field attains a vacuum expectation value. The fundamental interactions of gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force have now taken on their current forms. By exploring these different eras, we gain insights into the early evolution of the universe and the processes that shaped its structure and fundamental forces. The study of these epochs allows us to trace the remarkable journey of the cosmos from its earliest moments to its present state. The transition from the Quark Era to the Photon Age involves the formation of hadrons, the dominance of photons, and the subsequent era of nucleosynthesis. These processes require fine-tuning of various physical parameters and interactions. Understanding the processes involved in hadron formation, the dynamics of quark-gluon plasma, and the precise conditions during nucleosynthesis are areas of ongoing research. Moreover, reconciling observational data with theoretical predictions remains a challenge in this epoch. The transition from the Quark Era to the Photon Age involves the formation of hadrons, the dominance of photons, and the subsequent era of nucleosynthesis. These processes require fine-tuning of various physical parameters and interactions. Understanding the processes involved in hadron formation, the dynamics of quark-gluon plasma, and the precise conditions during nucleosynthesis are areas of ongoing research. Moreover, reconciling observational data with theoretical predictions remains a challenge in this epoch.

Hadron Era (6/10 seconds to 1 second after the Big Bang)

At this early stage, the Universe was composed of a hot, dense soup of quarks and antiquarks, the smallest known particles of matter. Under the high temperatures and pressures, these quarks began to combine to form composite particles called hadrons, including protons, neutrons, antineutrons, and mesons. This combination of quarks into hadrons was a complex process, involving strong nuclear interactions that confined the quarks inside these particles. Approximately 1 second after the Big Bang, the temperature dropped enough that neutrinos could finally escape and travel freely through space, forming a cosmic neutrino background analogous to the cosmic microwave background radiation that would come later.

Lepton era (1 to 3 minutes after the Big Bang)

As the Universe continued to expand and cool, most hadrons and antihadrons annihilated themselves in a wave of reactions, leaving leptons and antileptons as the main particles present. Leptons include electrons, muons, taons and their respective neutrinos. About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, the temperature dropped enough for the creation of new lepton/anti-lepton pairs to cease, and most of these were eliminated in the annihilation reactions, leaving only a small residue of leptons.

The key explanatory problems during the Quark Era, Hadron Era, and Lepton Era

Formation of hadrons and confinement: Understanding the complex processes involved in the formation of hadrons (protons, neutrons, and mesons) from quarks and antiquarks, as well as the strong nuclear interactions that confined quarks within these particles, poses a significant challenge.
Dynamics of quark-gluon plasma: Explaining the dynamics and properties of the hot, dense soup of quarks, antiquarks, and gluons that existed during the Quark Era requires a comprehensive understanding of the strong nuclear force and its behavior under extreme conditions.
Fine-tuning of physical parameters: The transition from the Quark Era to the Photon Age and the subsequent era of nucleosynthesis required precise fine-tuning of various physical parameters and interactions, such as the strength of the fundamental forces and the masses of particles.
Reconciling observations with theory: Reconciling observational data from cosmic microwave background radiation and other cosmological measurements with theoretical predictions regarding the conditions and processes during these early epochs remains an ongoing challenge.
Lepton/anti-lepton annihilation: Explaining the precise mechanisms and conditions that led to the annihilation of most lepton/anti-lepton pairs, leaving only a small residue of leptons, is an area of active research.

From a creationist perspective, the intricate processes and fine-tuning observed during these early epochs are attributed to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator. This divine intelligence established the precise conditions necessary for the formation of hadrons, the dynamics of the quark-gluon plasma, the fine-tuning of physical parameters, and the subsequent annihilation of lepton/anti-lepton pairs. The challenges in fully understanding the processes involved in hadron formation, the dynamics of the quark-gluon plasma, and the reconciliation of observational data with theoretical predictions can be seen as limitations of our current scientific models, which are constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. The Creator, existing outside the bounds of the physical universe, is not subject to these limitations and can orchestrate the unfolding of these early epochs in ways that may transcend our current comprehension.

Photon Age (3 minutes 380 thousand years after the Big Bang)

After the annihilation of most leptons and anti-leptons, the energy of the Universe began to be dominated by photons, or particles of light. These photons continued to frequently interact with protons, electrons, and atomic nuclei, keeping the Universe in a state of ionized plasma. This era of photon dominance lasted approximately 380,000 years until the expansion and cooling of the Universe allowed electrons to combine with atomic nuclei, forming neutral atoms. This marked the end of the Photon Era and the beginning of the Recombination Era.

Although this chronology is widely accepted by the scientific community, it is based on theoretical models and there are no direct observations that completely prove this sequence of events. This is a description consistent with our best cosmological theories, but it still lacks definitive observational evidence.

Nucleosynthesis between 3 minutes and 20 minutes after the Big Bang

During the photon epoch, the temperature of the universe drops to a point where atomic nuclei can begin to form. Protons (hydrogen ions) and neutrons start to combine into atomic nuclei through the process of nuclear fusion. However, nucleosynthesis only lasts for about 17 minutes, after which the temperature and density of the universe have dropped to a point where nuclear fusion can no longer continue. At this moment, there is approximately three times more hydrogen than helium-4 (by mass) and only trace amounts of other nuclei. Nucleosynthesis is a crucial process that shapes the elemental composition of the early universe. The fusion of protons and neutrons during this epoch leads to the production of light elements such as helium-4, deuterium, helium-3, and traces of lithium. These light elements serve as the building blocks for the formation of more complex elements in later cosmic processes.

Recombination: 240,000-310,000 years

The data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation provide insights into the recombination epoch, which occurred approximately 240,000 to 310,000 years after the Big Bang. During this period, the universe undergoes significant changes as hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form, and the density of the universe decreases. At the start of recombination, hydrogen and helium are primarily ionized, meaning that there are no bound electrons to their nuclei, and they are therefore electrically charged (hydrogen with a charge of +1 and helium with a charge of +2). As the universe cools down, electrons are captured by the ions, resulting in neutral atoms. This process, known as recombination, occurs relatively quickly, even faster for helium than for hydrogen. By the end of recombination, the majority of atoms in the universe are neutral, allowing photons to travel freely. The universe becomes transparent, and the photons emitted shortly after recombination, undisturbed by interactions, are the ones we observe as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The CMB provides a snapshot of the universe at the end of this epoch, carrying valuable information about its early structure and dynamics. The study of nucleosynthesis and recombination allows scientists to understand the elemental abundances in the universe and provides evidence for the Big Bang theory. By analyzing the composition of light elements and the patterns observed in the CMB, researchers can gain insights into the physical processes that shaped the early universe and laid the foundation for the formation of galaxies, stars, and ultimately, life as we know it. Recombination entails the transition from an ionized plasma to a neutral gas, requiring fine-tuning of recombination rates and cooling mechanisms. Understanding the detailed physics of recombination, including the formation of neutral atoms and the dynamics of photon interactions, remains an active area of study. The accuracy of theoretical predictions and their agreement with observational data is crucial for further progress.

The challenges and fine-tuning observed throughout the early stages of the universe's evolution present significant hurdles for explanations solely based on unguided natural mechanisms. Achieving the staggering precision required for the fundamental constants, parameters, and physical processes to unfold as observed through random chance alone would be highly improbable, if not impossible. The intricacies of the unification of fundamental forces, the delicate balance necessary for phase transitions, and the precise adjustments needed for inflationary expansion all point to a level of complexity that exceeds what unguided natural mechanisms are known to produce.  Moreover, some proposed models, such as grand unification theories, lack empirical evidence to support their claims, rendering them speculative and unable to fully account for the observed phenomena. The sequence of events, from the formation of particles to the onset of nucleosynthesis and recombination, appears carefully orchestrated and interconnected, suggesting an overarching intelligence at work. Random processes are unlikely to produce such a coherent and interdependent series of events. The information content present in the universe's initial conditions and throughout its evolution further suggests the presence of a guiding intelligence capable of encoding and manipulating this information to bring about the observed universe. In light of these challenges and observations, the concept of an intelligent designer provides a coherent and satisfactory explanation for the intricacies and fine-tuning observed in the early universe. This designer, possessing the ability to manipulate fundamental parameters and orchestrate complex processes, offers a compelling solution to the mysteries of cosmic origins and evolution.

The key explanatory problems during the Photon Age, Nucleosynthesis, and Recombination

Lack of direct observational evidence: Although the described chronology of events during these epochs is consistent with our best cosmological theories, there is a lack of direct observational evidence that completely proves this sequence of events.
Fine-tuning of recombination rates and cooling mechanisms: The transition from an ionized plasma to a neutral gas during recombination required precise fine-tuning of recombination rates and cooling mechanisms to achieve the observed conditions.
Understanding the detailed physics of recombination: Developing a comprehensive understanding of the detailed physics involved in recombination, including the formation of neutral atoms and the dynamics of photon interactions, remains an active area of study.
Reconciling theoretical predictions with observational data: Ensuring the accuracy of theoretical predictions and their agreement with observational data from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and other cosmological measurements is crucial for further progress in understanding these epochs.
Elemental abundances and nucleosynthesis: Explaining the precise mechanisms and conditions that led to the observed elemental abundances, particularly the production of light elements such as helium-4, deuterium, helium-3, and traces of lithium, during the nucleosynthesis epoch is an ongoing area of research.

From a creationist perspective, the challenges and fine-tuning observed throughout these early stages of the universe's evolution is attributed to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator. This divine intelligence established the precise conditions necessary for the transition from an ionized plasma to a neutral gas during recombination, the mechanisms governing nucleosynthesis and the production of light elements, and the overall unfolding of these epochs in a manner consistent with observational data. The challenges in fully understanding the detailed physics of recombination, reconciling theoretical predictions with observational data, and explaining the elemental abundances resulting from nucleosynthesis can be seen as limitations of our current scientific models, which are constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. The Creator, existing outside the bounds of the physical universe, is not subject to these limitations and can orchestrate the unfolding of these epochs in ways that may transcend our current comprehension. Furthermore, the creationist explanation provides a framework for understanding the apparent fine-tuning of recombination rates, cooling mechanisms, and the precise conditions necessary for the observed phenomena during these epochs. From this perspective, the delicate balance of parameters and the intricate processes are not mere coincidences or artifacts of the laws of nature alone, but rather a reflection of the intentional design and creative act of a higher intelligence. The creationist viewpoint offers a broader context for understanding the Photon Age, Nucleosynthesis, and Recombination by attributing the observed phenomena and challenges to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator, rather than seeking explanations solely within the constraints of our current scientific models.

Claim:  The creationism explanation is not scientific. It is a God of the Gaps argument. Just because we have no scientific explanation, doesn't mean, God did it.
Refuting the objection: While it is true that invoking a divine creator as an explanation for gaps in our scientific understanding can be considered a "God of the Gaps" argument, the creationist perspective as presented here goes beyond simply filling in gaps with a supernatural explanation. Instead, it offers a comprehensive framework that addresses not only the current limitations of our scientific models but also the fundamental questions about the origin and fine-tuning of the universe's initial conditions and processes.

The creationist explanation directly addresses the significant challenge posed by the extraordinary fine-tuning of various fundamental constants, parameters, and physical processes observed in the early universe. The precise adjustments required for the unification of fundamental forces, the triggering of cosmic inflation, the formation of particles and nuclei, and the subsequent transition to a neutral gas during recombination are difficult to reconcile with purely naturalistic explanations based on chance or unguided processes. Rather than invoking a divine creator as a piecemeal solution for specific gaps, the creationist perspective provides a coherent explanatory framework that accounts for the interconnected series of events and phenomena observed in the early universe. It attributes the orchestration of these processes to the intentional design and creative act of a higher intelligence capable of encoding and manipulating the information content present in the universe's initial conditions. One of the fundamental challenges in cosmology is explaining the origin of the universe's initial conditions, such as the precise values of fundamental constants and the incredibly low entropy state from which the universe emerged. The creationist explanation offers a viable solution by attributing these initial conditions to the intentional design and creative act of a transcendent source or Creator. The creationist perspective acknowledges the limitations of our current scientific models, which are constrained by the physical laws and dimensions of the universe itself. It recognizes that these models may be inadequate to fully explain the processes and fine-tuning observed in the early universe, and proposes the existence of a higher intelligence capable of transcending these limitations. While the creationist explanation may not conform to the methodological naturalism typically embraced by science, it does not necessarily render it unscientific or dismissible. Science itself has limitations in addressing questions of ultimate origins and the potential existence of a transcendent source or intelligence beyond the physical universe. The creationist perspective offers a philosophical framework that complements scientific inquiry by providing a coherent explanation for the observed phenomena and addressing the fundamental questions that science alone may struggle to answer.

The creationist explanation does not preclude or discourage scientific investigation and progress. Rather, it acknowledges the current limitations of our understanding and proposes a broader context within which scientific discoveries and advancements can be integrated and interpreted. While the "God of the Gaps" argument is a valid concern, the creationist explanation as presented here offers a comprehensive framework that addresses not only the gaps in our scientific understanding but also the fundamental questions about the origin, fine-tuning, and intricate orchestration of the early universe's processes. It provides a philosophical perspective that complements scientific inquiry and acknowledges the potential existence of a higher intelligence capable of transcending the limitations of our current models. The creationist explanation is based on positive evidence and observations that suggest the existence of an intelligent designer or creator. The universe exhibiting a definite beginning, as evidenced by the Big Bang cosmological model, is strong positive evidence for creation. An absolute start to space, time, matter, and energy is more consistent with the notion of a transcendent cause or creator than an eternally existing universe without a first cause. The order and precise mathematical laws that govern the universe, from the fundamental forces and constants to the dynamics of subatomic particles and celestial bodies, point to an underlying intelligence and design. The high degree of specificity and interdependence of these laws and constants is difficult to explain by mere chance or unguided processes. The extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe's initial conditions, such as the precise values of fundamental constants, interaction strengths, and the incredibly low entropy state, is a positive indication of intentional design. These finely tuned parameters are not only interdependent but also irreducible, meaning that a minimal set of parameters must be instantiated for the universe to exist as we observe it. This level of fine-tuning from the very onset is difficult to reconcile with unguided, random processes.

The existence of objective mathematical laws and principles that underlie the universe's operation, including the laws of physics, chemistry, and information theory, suggests the presence of an intelligent source capable of encoding and instantiating these principles. The inherent intelligibility and rational structure of the universe are positive evidence for an intelligent creator. Furthermore, the fact that the universe exhibits both complexity and specified complexity, especially in the realm of biological systems and information-rich structures, is a hallmark of intelligent design. Specified complexity, which involves the simultaneous presence of complex patterns and functional specificity, is a strong positive indicator of intelligence and is challenging to explain through purely undirected natural processes. The creationist explanation not only addresses the gaps in our scientific understanding but also provides a coherent framework that accounts for the positive evidence of design, fine-tuning, and the existence of an intelligent source behind the universe's origin and operation. The creationist perspective does not dismiss or discourage scientific investigation and progress. Instead, it acknowledges the limitations of our current scientific models and proposes a broader context within which scientific discoveries and advancements can be interpreted and understood. The existence of an intelligent creator does not negate the value and importance of scientific inquiry but rather provides a philosophical foundation for understanding the universe's underlying principles and design.