Stephen Hawking believes that power was an instanton which was capable of producing the universe we have today and everything in it. The problem is that instanton would have to have a vacuum to pop into existence in, to then expand and create the universe. But he makes no provisions for space to contain a vacuum for the instanton to pop into existence in.
It doesn't need a vacuum, the instanton is an entire four-dimensional history, an entire universe and it explicitly does not exist "in" anything else. Anyway this is like at the limits of unproven hyper advanced theoretical physics, it wouldn't really make much sense unless one knew quantum mechanics well enough*. Which leads to:
This is where the so-called space/time came from.
There is no scientific data to support such a conclusion
It's just a proposal of Hawking's, not a scientifically accepted consensus.
I don't have time to look it up at the moment. But if memory serves me right Stephen Hawking said that in a vacuum these particles will appear and when they do they will create a universe just like ours.
Virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum is a common popularization. It's also incorrect, empty space is just empty. It's sort of a popularization that occurred at an unfortunate time. Early in quantum field theory's development it looked like it predicted particles popping in and out of the vacuum, and this hit old science magazines, but it actually doesn't.
That is not the way it is treated at EvC.
Maybe, but it's a subtle issue to grasp. I don't personally recall people supporting Hawking's instanton theory, but I may have missed the threads.
If you mean that the Big Bang explains the origins of the universe or stuff like "Time began in the big bang", which aren't true, I'm not surprised people think this. Nearly every popular account says so. The two semesters I taught graduate cosmology the students actually couldn't believe that the Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the universe, as all media and books say so again and again. I think this is a failing of the physics community, we are content to have programs explain half-formed notions from the 1940s instead of modern physics, which genuinely I think is clearer and easier to grasp.
My problem with that is that there are certain assumptions that must be accepted (believed happened) in order for the BBT to describe what happened after T=10-43 s. Some facts would be great to base things on that assumptions. Do you have any?
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. For example regarding assumptions, the Big Bang theory predicts present effects as evidence of a past event, the same as any historical theory. e.g. the theory that the an old tower collapsed would predict that you would see debris from the tower on the ground. There isn't really any assumptions.
Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?
There was no one around to observe anything so that is out of the question.
Observational evidence refers to measurable side effects in the present, not eye witness accounts.
You say the BBT makes predictions. These are devised from the assumption made by men.
To the first sentence, yes I am saying that. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence means. If you mean we assume what the past might have been like, derive present consequences of that and then see if they are true, then yes.
The BBT has 20 problems that would disqualify any other theory.
The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s
It doesn't assume that.
So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10-43 s
I don't want you to believe that as it is not what the Big Bang theory states.
How did that something begin to exist anyway? It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.
I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.
We have 3 choices. 1. The universe has always existed. 2 The universe began to exist where there was non existence. 3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God.
#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead. #2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist #3 is the only logical choice.
These sound like questions one would ask of a theory that purports to explain the origins of reality, which the Big Bang theory is not. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the state of the observable universe 13.7 billion years ago.
The Big Bang theory is not about how the universe began or how things originated or how reality started. It is simply a historical claim about the observable universe. Stop and think about what this means.
If I had a theory that a volcano erupted on an island 3,000 years ago and I worked out as a consequence that the soil should contain, say 12.6% calcium. A valid criticism of the theory would be: (a) Measurement of the soil contains 13.4% calcium (b) Sea deposits may have left the calcium.
Invalid methods of criticism would be to say: We have 3 choices. 1. The volcano has always existed. 2 The volcano began to exist where there was non existence. 3. The volcano was created by an all powerful eternal God.
#1 is impossible as the volcano would be dead. #2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist #3 is the only logical choice.
Similarly with the Big Bang theory. It is not a theory about the ultimate origins of the world, hence criticisms about an origins theory are irrelevant.
Having an accurate and reliable methodology is everything.
This is what I meant by the where and how must be sound. I still don't know if it is everything. It might be for science as a philosophical system, but for why people are motivated by it, want to do research I'm not so sure or as it is practiced, I'm not too sure.
However, a specific answer is not their motivation. Scientists weren't trying to produce 2.998E8 m/s for the speed of light. Scientists don't care what the number actually is as long as it is the product of good methodology and science.
I'm not sure that is something that is true in universal and I think it ignores qualitative answers.
For example if the Higgs mass is over ~ 650GeV it implies the universe is very different from if it is under 650Gev. I think people do care about the actual value in this case and in several other cases as they want to understand the world.
Also in several cases the numerical results are simply to confirm a qualitative fact. "Does spin couple to magnetism?" and other such qualitative answers are all checked by numerical results, but people care about the qualitative answer. Not just that the method it was arrived at with was sound.