alternatives to big bang theory

[claymore]

Leaving out creationism, and the big bang, are there any other plausible theories that attempt to explain the existence of the universe?

[Teddio]

Look up Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory.

[fo3nix]

"any other plausible theories" ... you talk like creationism is in this group! :P

[whiffy]

Why is Creationism not plausible?

[ll_billym]

As fas as I know the Big Bang Theory only explains how the univers started as an infinitely small and dense state and expanded into the universe today. It does not try to explain how the original state came to be. I may be corrected on this though as I do not know the full theory.

In my opinion nobody will ever know how the universe actually came into existance as we are all "inside" it for want of a better description.

Unless of course you are religious and then you know exactly how it happened, can explain it in three words and absolutely know you are correct because you truly believe it. But I degress.

[jake-the-peg]

The steady state theory used to be plausible but over the years the evidence has built up against it in a truely monumental and even Fred Hoyle had to accept it shortly before he died.

There are often fundamental misundertandings (sometimes deliberate ones) about this.

You have to remember that it wasn't just stars and galaxies that came into existence in the big bang but physical space and time too.

To talk about time before or even of an initial state is actually meaningless.

I know that seems hard to comprehend because we exist in time and no human has any experience even remotely like the non existence of time.

But it's a little like someone asking you what you were doing 200 years before you were born

[claymore]

Big bang theory seems to violate one of the basic laws of physics, that is that matter cannot be created or destroyed . If we accept that the universe was already in existence as a singularity ,how could the initial explosion overcome the infinite gravity that held it together?

[chakka35]

Creationism is implausible, whiffy>/b>, because it involves a supernatural creature of some sort using a form of magic. I would hardly call that plausible.

Then again, you have to decide which act of creation you are talking about. There are so many creation myths embedded in the world's plethora of religions that the Amerindian ones alone have had to be grouped into seven categories.

[chakka35]

Sorry, fouled up the cancellation of the bold!

[mibn2cweus]

. . . In addition, to the extent of our knowledge it has taken billions of years for an intelligence to evolve with the capacity to comprehend its place in the universe, let alone create one. The elements essential to life and for the development of a means of perception and consciousness to arise did not exist for millions of years until the first stars had formed and died. To suggest that a creative entity existed prior to a universe in which to observe and learn what can be created defies everything we know about reality and what can reasonably be asserted.

A consciousness, (even one without the ability to reason and create purposefully), without something to be conscious of (or the means to achieve consciousness) is a contradiction. Existence precedes consciousness.

Creativity is a product of existence not the creator of existence.

The universe exists, this much is self-evident by looking at it. Understanding how it got to be the way it is is something that can only be discovered by the observations and explorations of a conscious rational thinking process carried out by an evolved product of its existence.

[another-view]

So it wasn't a guy with a big white beard waving his hand then?

[jake-the-peg]

Big bang theory does not violate the conservation of Energy/Matter

As far as we can tell the net Gravitational energy in the Universe balances the net energy due to matter leaving a net energy of zero (because gravitational potential energy is negative)

Even if this were not the case, there is absolutely no reason why the laws of physics that we observe from within the Universe need apply to the Universe as a whole.

For example during the inflationary period the acceleration of the Universe far outstripped the speed of light. This is not a problem because such laws are only valid for objects within the Universe.

[Rtaxron]

We might know more on Wed when they will create the big bang 300 feet under ground outside Geneva, or we could all be annihilated!

[nightmare]

jake-the-peg

during the inflationary period, the rate of expansion was greater than the speed of light. Matter was not moving faster than light.