Culture and Religion

A world view where the guide for society is based on human nature,
 not on ancient scriptures.  Home  or Topic Groups


Is the Big Bang Logical

Is the Big Bang theory logical?
The Big Bang theory attempts to explain how our universe as observed came into existence from one creation event, called the big bang.
This is the current universe as observed and measured:

a) There is no antimatter observed in the universe, but only antiparticles created by rare cosmic ray collisions. Here, antimatter is defined as atoms made up of antiparticles; no such atoms are observed.
b) nearly all of the universe is plasma, either ionized matter or free electrons and protons (or ionized hydrogen)
Charged matter exerts an electric field. With charges and magnets likes repel and opposites attract.
matter of the same charge (i.e, ions, protons, electrons) moving together constitutes an electric current. Birkelund currents are known to be capable of a great compression force and are used in fusion reactors. An electric current exerts a magnetic field. The vector for the force from this field follows the right hand rule. This force is in the clockwise or counter clockwise direction depending on current direction and the observer's perspective (to select CW or CCW).

c) Instead of always random motions some symmetry is often observed in the universe with CW or CCW motions.
All planets in our solar system orbit about the sun counterclockwise relative to sun's North.
All planets in our solar system and the Sun, except Venus and Uranus, rotate about their axis counterclockwise; the axis of  Uranus has a large tilt indicating an unusual history.
The stars (and arms) of the Milky Way orbit clockwise.

d) Plasma filaments are observed between galaxies as part of larger stuctures. The universe has various collections or structures ranging from our Local Group to the larger Virgo supercluster, which is part of the even larger Laniakea supercluster.

Even though cosmologists cannot possibly know what constituted this entity that is thought to have exploded with a big bang, they have theorized how this completely unknown stuff evolved into what we observe, even identifying specific phases and their durations.

The steps following the big bang:

This is the currently accepted timeline, with all quotes from wikipedia.


The very early universe – the first picosecond (10-12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply.'

Therefore the early universe started with unknown stuff and then it changed within one picosecond into another unknown thing, though these events during this time passed ignoring what we know about physics. This step is not logical simply saying something magical happened here.


The early universe, lasting around 377,000 years, various kinds of subatomic particles are formed in stages. These particles include almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter, so most of it quickly annihilates, leaving a small excess of matter in the universe.


Even though there is no antimatter in our current universe this step creates a substantial quantity of it but most of it disappears leaving only a small excess of matter.
The obvious question is why is antimatter created here only to disappear by the present time? Why does any antimatter remain after this step? Only most was annihilated but not all,  though it must disappear by now. This step is not logical.


At about one second, neutrinos decouple; these neutrinos form the cosmic neutrino background. Composite subatomic particles emerge – including protons and neutrons – and from about 3 minutes, conditions are suitable for nucleosynthesis: around 25% of the protons and all the neutrons fuse into heavier elements, mainly helium-4.


Only one second of time will pass while the original unknown stuff changes into the protons and neutrons we see. A simpler theory would have been just start with protons and neutrons and skip a step of magic having no foundation in physics. This is not logical.

In that one second the baryonic matter dispersed in the universe is somehow able to coagulate and generate the incredible pressures required for fusion.
This scenario is beyond what I know of physics to take place in so short a time on a galactic scale.

Neutrinos are also part of this step.

Even high energy neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect,  so the CNB may not be directly observed in detail for many years, if at all. However, Big Bang cosmology makes many predictions about the CNB.

These neutrinos being proposed in this step might never be confirmed. If they were detected then confirming a direct relationship from such evidence to this very first second, billions of years ago, must be very difficult if not impossible. To propose such a scenario is not logical.

By 20 minutes, the universe is no longer hot enough for fusion, but far too hot for neutral atoms to exist or photons to travel far. It is therefore an opaque plasma. At around 47,000 years, as the universe cools, its behavior begins to be dominated by matter rather than radiation.

from 377,000 years until about 1 billion years. After recombination and decoupling, the universe was transparent but the clouds of hydrogen only collapsed very slowly to form stars and galaxies

nucleosynthesis or fusion began in the first second but stars began forming after a billion years. How did nucleosynthesis happen so much earlier with no stars? This is not logical. No mechanism (with physics) is provided. This reference to 'opaque plasma' is unclear because those charges will not remain disorganized; plasma has known behaviors and to propose plasma will just remain 'opaque' implies the proposed plasma is not really plasma in this sentence. Apparently all this plasma becomes clouds of hydrogen to subsequently collapse into stars. The proposed collapse of a gas into a star via only gravity violates the laws of thermodynamics given there is no identified external force to do the work; a gas by itself cannot collapse; a gas will always expand to fill its container.

At some point around 400 to 700 million years, the earliest generations of stars and galaxies form, and early large structures gradually emerge, drawn to the foam-like dark matter filaments.

Dark matter is currently proposed to explain motions of stars in galaxies but there is still no evidence this theoretical substance exists. Perhaps electromagnetic forces could explain such motions but those forces are ignored by cosmologists leaving only an unconfirmed theory.

This step presumes dark matter exists at this time and somehow creates filaments.
Our current universe has plasma filaments so what does the theoretical dark matter actually do in this step? If no dark matter existed in this step how would the step change? If it would not make a difference then why even propose there was dark matter around during this time? In this step is dark matter plasma? This step is not logical.


Galaxy clusters and superclusters emerge over time.  The universe gradually transitioned into the universe we see around us today, and the Dark Ages only fully came to an end at about 1 billion years.


This long time line had so much happening in the first  few seconds and then the universe inexplicably, drastically slows to gradual transitions over about a billion years.
The steps of this theory have no evidence and ignore physics. The criteria used to justify any of the durations for steps in this time line are all undefined, perhaps random.

There are very large structures in the universe even involving many galaxies spanning huge distances. The long time for this step is probably the result of realizing gravity alone will have difficulty achieving that observed structure even in whatever time is allotted. Perhaps electromagnetic forces could affect the formation of huge structures more efficiently. Unfortunately gravity alone must do it (electromagnetic forces are never involved) so a substantial amount of time is required. The BOSS Great Wall structure spans 1 billion light years so that must have required even more time to stabilize.

There is no way to test the proposed galactic behaviors taking a billion years.


From 1 billion years, and for about 12.8 billions of years, the universe has looked much as it does today. From about 9.8 billion years of cosmic time, the slowing expansion of space gradually begins to accelerate under the influence of dark energy, which may be a scalar field throughout our universe. The present-day universe is understood quite well, but beyond about 100 billion years of cosmic time (about 86 billion years in the future), uncertainties in current knowledge mean that we are less sure which path our universe will take.

I have posted about dark stuff.

Because cosmologists must rely on mystical dark matter and dark energy (both are invisible and so can never be detected or confirmed) the claim 'the universe is understood quite well' is absolutely laughable. When there are no dark invisible forces required then one could presume the universe is probably understood much better than now.

The whole premise of a big bang is based on the critical assumption (based on only redshifts) all distant objects are zooming in a direction away from earth  at velocities near or exceeding the speed of light.
If that simple assumption is wrong (i.e., large redshifts are intrinsic so those objects are not really so far away or moving faster than light), then the need for the big bang and dark energy simply go away.

However if there really was a big bang the current theory for a big bang is not logically consistent and it defines times and processes that have no scientific foundation. It begins with an unknown followed by steps having no justification and do not follow logic while having durations that appear random (i.e., extremely quick).

The big bang theory has been accepted for many decades but when reviewing it from an objective perspective it remains illogical with many unjustified assumptions. This critique is cursory; the individual sequences and all the assumptions within only that first second were not reviewed; that exercise seems unwarranted given the obvious uncertainties.
These inadequacies should have been addressed years ago, to justify the claim of 'understanding'. Apparently my conclusions (reached after reading only descriptions (quoted above) without investigating fine details) are not shared by others who read those same descriptions.

Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Select  Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.