News arrive today that the big bang theory might be flawed in its very core. The general idea of the BigBang Theory is that an ever expanding Universe needs to have a certain beginning. Expansion in a physical sense needs to start with an expansion inducing state - an explosion. Hawkings had delivered one of the main mathematical models for the calculation of the ever expanding universe and therefore had proven that the BigBang Theory is the most accurate of them all.
The current claim, actually coming from a scientist called Turok (no, not the game) who is currently director of the Premeter Institute of Canada. As professor he has worked with Hawkings previously. He is claiming that the math modelling hasn't been available during the time that Hawkings defined the bigbang theory and is now assessing the situation differently. There seems to be a constant state of expansion and shrinkage of the universe. The expansion and shrinkage happens due to repeating explosions happening.
- Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity,'
He concludes that to the so called: The BigBounce Theory.
My take is, no one has been there and no one knows for certain. I have always been asking myself how someone could calculate the past with a formula if he doesn't really have complete data. How could you possibly solve an equation if you don't have all information available to do so. Isn't it rather an approximation and therefore a thesis? In the end it is a model accepting certain circumstances. Maybe one day we will look back and laugh at both theories. I believe mostly in what I can see and understand as a content of my true existence. I rather find myself struggling with explaining things with models.
The title of the dailymail article you quote is a bit chocking (your post is not, don't worry). This article says that the big-bang theory is wrong, but this is not what Turok says... He indeed only says that a big-bounce theory is not excluded by data. And that the big-bang is actually a bounce...
I really liked the way you presented that news. Very neutral :) And this triggers my curiosity (so that I have read the original article available (for free) on the arxiv ^^
It seems to come down to how well the models can end up with similar results to what we see now after we run them 13 billion years forward. But I know there are a number of problems with the ones we have now for the big bang theory. And it does seem quite simplistic and even a bit crazy to simply observe expansion and conclude it all used to be a single point. That's not to say it couldn't be right, but I think it's good other ideas are being explored!
Definitely agree, if we stop exploring we are basically dead. This is the most important lesson that Hawking has teached us. Never stop exploring! :)