Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

If anyone claims to know for definite what happened prior to this time, currently, they are doing so on faith. Very few people make this claim. However, developing a theory to try and explain what was happening at this time is science. The problem that these theories suffer from is that the unique predictions they make about the universe are incredibly difficult to test.Hopefully we will have a better idea which theories are looking in the right direction at least after the LHC has been running for a while. Assuming that the universe exists during time is not a faith based assumption. If time exists, so does the universe. There is evidence that the universe is about 13.7 billion light years in length/duration at this time.Even you agree that the universe(heavens/earth) exists 10^-43 seconds after "In the beginning". Believing that the universe exists during its existence is not a matter of faith re: CMB: An interesting 10 minute video can be found here = as part of the physics for future presidents series. It gives a brief overview of why there should be one according to Big Bang cosmology, as well as its 'clumpiness'The beginning of this video talks about this "Planck Epoch" in much the same we have tried to get it across to you. The creator of the video uses a gigantic spinning question mark and says, in effect, 'We don't know, we have some theories but we haven't been able to confirm them yet'.And finally a classic wiki quote to drive the point home

quote:

---

Experimental data casting light on this cosmological epoch has been scant or non-existent until now, but recent results from the WMAP probe have allowed scientists to test hypotheses about the universe's first trillionth of a second (although the cosmic microwave background radiation observed by WMAP originated when the universe was already several hundred thousand years old). Although this interval is still orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time, other experiments currently coming online including the IceCube neutrino detector and the Planck Surveyor probe, promise to push back our 'cosmic clock' further to reveal quite a bit more about the very first moments of our universe's history, hopefully giving us some insight into the Planck epoch itself. Of course, data from particle accelerators provides meaningful insight into the early universe as well. Experiments with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have allowed physicists to determine that the Quark-gluon plasma (an early phase of matter) behaved more like a liquid than a gas, and the Large Hadron Collider soon to come online at CERN will allow us to probe still earlier phases of matter, but no accelerator (current or planned) will allow us to probe the Planck scale directly. However, the more we understand about how matter forms, the more precisely we will be able to interpret what we learn from astrophysical data, and from other sources.

---

Definitely looks like science to me. Nobody is making any unsubstantiated claims, just describing what seems to be the case based on the evidence and proposing new experiments that can help give us more evidence to increase what we do know.

Well in 1896 Charles Edouard Guillaume estimated the 'radiation of the stars' to be about 5.6K - and a few other physicists played about with the idea in a variety of ways: source. I'm assuming it is to that that ICANT is referring.

OK, so nothing exists at T=0, what follows from your hypothesis?

OK, do you agree that the hypothesis 'nothing^* exists' leads to no hypothesis whatsoever, other than perhaps 'nothing exists now'? Since there is something now, would you agree that on the face of it - the hypothesis is falsified and we might get better understanding by theorizing possibilities where 'something' exists?By developing a hypothesis, there is no requirement to commit to that hypothesis as an article of faith. The only requirement is, does the hypothesis lead to predictions that can be tested? If so, let's test them and see what happens.If you disagree, why? If you do not, where is the necessity of faith? Where is the believing something without evidence?^* For simple definitions of nothing.