Odds that Big Bang Theory is wrong?

[Paleo Donk]

So, what do you guys think the odds are that the Big Bang Theory as it is now is not on the right track. Basically that an alternative cosmology, creationist, crack-potter or not yet thought of theory are better. What is the probability of BBT being significantly wrong?

[TylerDurden]

The big bang theory generally ignores the question:- "what existed in the universe before the big bang?" More than likely there were endless cycles of big bangs(and subsequent crunches) in an eternal Universe.(ie a combination of the steady state theory and big bangs).

[alphagruis]

There is trouble with prevailing theories and particularly with string theories but the solution is certainly not to be found in creationism, catastrophism etc.

It is rather a not yet thought of theory that has to do with the limitations of reductionism, the emergent and thus definitely non absolute character of physical laws, as for instance the views inferred from general relativity.

[goodsamaritan]

We can have entertaining mind games discussing it.
But it doesn't matter.
And we will probably never really know.

[KD]

I think because of how 'god' is conceptualized it becomes difficult for 'science' to acknowledge any beings or abstract forces capable of creating systems or phenomena that then create systems. but my human brain is incapable of really seeing any other alternative, as the concept of absolute timeless nothing, or absolute nothing turning into something does not jive with me. So while there is probably some truth to the type of expansion attempted to be illustrated by BBT - and no doubt that dense information might unravel into more complex -I can't fathom the container that held or precipitated it, so I remain somewhat skeptical of it as a complete explanation.

odds are even.

[Paleo Donk]

I think because of how 'god' is conceptualized it becomes difficult for 'science' to acknowledge any beings or abstract forces capable of creating systems or phenomena that then create systems. but my human brain is incapable of really seeing any other alternative, as the concept of absolute timeless nothing, or absolute nothing turning into something does not jive with me. So while there is probably some truth to the type of expansion attempted to be illustrated by BBT - and no doubt that dense information might unravel into more complex -I can't fathom the container that held or precipitated it, so I remain somewhat skeptical of it as a complete explanation.

odds are even.

This is pretty much my exact sentiment. I like the idea of other universes colliding and producing ours.

[Raw Kyle]

I think 10 to 1 is fair since there aren't many good alternatives. I like what Tyler said about big bang followed by big crunch in an endless cycle. In fact before I heard about that theory I came up with it on my own, as it seems to make the most sense.

My concept of it was that all of the matter and energy in the universe, when condensed together into one big black hole, is the exact amount required to create the explosion (kind of like a supernova except a black hole exploding rather than a star) that then propels all of the matter and energy out again in expansion. This expansion is at first accelerating, as ours is now, and then the acceleration tapers off and it begins to expand at a slower and slower rate, until the tide finally turns and it contracts slowly. Then the contraction would accelerate in an exactly opposite function to the expansion, that is to say that at the same "point" of expansion the acceleration of the contraction would be the same magnitude but in the opposite direction. And then at the very last the speed and acceleration is so fast that it resembles the opposite of the big bang explosion until everything is all gathered together, and then at the very moment in time that every last bit of weight is added it will explode again.

With my limited training in physics and other sciences that comes to my mind as the most likely way to resolve the big bang, physicists current findings, and the need to explain what came before and what might come after the big bang.