Big Bang Theory Debate

How would you disprove Big Bang cosmology by an experiment?

I don't like playing that card, but I am a physicist, a cosmologist actually, and I wrote in my last post how it breaks. And I used the qualifier "approximation" in my first post of this thread. If you don't assume homogeneity on large scales you don't get a big bang. Or at least I'm not aware of any of the routes you are talking about. Even observing receding galaxies does not necessarily imply a big bang, which is why the debate wasn't settled until th

The inflationary epoch where it expanded by 10^78 in volume happened in the first 10^-32 seconds. The furthest galaxy we can see (fairly poorly) is 300M years after the Big Bang. It's likely if time or the rules were different, 300M years was enough for things to mostly die down to steady state. And as you say, they match more or less but those errors could easily hide remnants of when things were different. Of course, these are all numbers that assume the Big Bang theory is correct which i

"Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore". Ethan Siegel, Starts with a Bang.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28851641I can't tell whether this is just, "Actually having started with the Big Bang implies a singularity, which isn't allowed, so let's assume it wasn't a singularity and take what we get then."

A great cosmology faq, answering this and a lot of other questions: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

That's attributed to Big Bang because most people believe there was a Big Bang. Maybe it comes from another phenomenon. Or maybe they're right.

Which is factually correct, no? We cannot see beyond the cosmic microwave background, which post-dates the Big Bang by a significant amount. Barring the development of astronomical scale gravity wave detectors, we probably can’t probe further than the CMB, not directly at least. Things like the ratio of hydrogen to helium allow us to constrain our model of the Big Bang and early inflation, but that is parameter matching on the assumption of a big bang, not evidence for it.That’s a fine but im

It was renamed Dark Energy. (j/k)And the observational evidence is interpreted as pointing to a Big Bang. There are other interpretations which don't require a finite age or an initial singularity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

That would be pretty surprising. Explaining the CMB, among other things, without a Big Bang seems hard.It's cool that JWST is providing interesting data though, eventually this will shake out into some great improvements in cosmology and maybe physics.For now this type of article seems like it just wants a clickable headline though.

My main response to this article is essentially the same question. I think the article is presuming some things to come to this conclusion.The main thing that is being presumed is the "big bang". If you proscribe to believing in the big bang, then the entirety of everything we see is an expansion from a single dense explosion of matter.It is still a valid theory but I myself don't understand the physics of what is observed well enough to be convinced this is true. I believe