Currently the standard model incorporates the hypothetical stuff called ‘dark energy’. That is some sort of anti-gravity type energy that is alleged to have caused the expansion of the universe to start to accelerate back about 5 billion years ago. But ‘dark energy’ is otherwise unknown to modern physics. Really it is a fudge factor in the big bang theory.
Now some cosmologists have suggested ‘dark energy’ may have had another role in the early universe. This occurred after some very brief period of hypothesized cosmic inflation that spread out whatever particles existed in the universe then to make it extremely dilute.
Astrophysicist Paul Sutter in an article on Space.com wrote:[i]
“The researchers found that a brief fluctuation in dark energy could have flooded the early universe with exotic particles like quarks, gluons and leptons that would eventually congeal into the atoms we know and love today.”
This flood of new particles came from, that is, condensed out of a putative fluctuation in ‘dark energy’. In essence it means the universe, which was extremely cold at that time, was ‘reheated’ with this flood of new particles. This is what is called the ‘big bang’ – a sudden phase of hot particles flooding the universe as it expands.
There you have it! More fairy tales! An unknown form of energy is used to not only explain the observations of the current state of the universe, which does not otherwise fit the theory, but also now it can be used to explain the big bang fireball, from which it is alleged all matter arose.
Reference
[i] Paul Sutter, Did dark energy cause the Big Bang? Space.com, March 4, 2020
Additional Reading
- Big Bang Fudge Factors
- Inflation–all in the dark
- The singularity—a ‘Dark’ beginning
- The big bang is not a Reason to Believe!
- Is the Universe really expanding — the evidence revisited
- Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe?
Bible Science Forum 
2 replies on “Did dark energy cause the big bang?”
Hi John, Another interesting development has taken place regarding Dark Energy that threatens to completely discredit the field of cosmology.
A few years ago a researcher named Singal published a paper where he measured the speed of the solar system relative to radio galaxies. He found the speed was 4 times as large as had been determined from the CMB.
Recently, researchers at Oxford, namely Prof. Subir Sarkar, confirmed Singal’s discovery by using a much larger data set.The Oxford research is drawing interest because it is calling into question the small data set that was used to claim Dark Energy existed in the first place.
To me however, that debate is missing the forest for the trees.
The big result of this discovery if confirmed – is that the CMB dipole is not kinematic.
If that’s the case, wouldn’t this make the argument that the earth is the center of the universe awfully hard to dispute?
And just for the record, Singal also published another paper were he measured the speed relative to quasars. This time he found it was 5 times as fast…but moving in the opposite direction.
So, according to cosmology the planet earth is now moving at 3 different speeds in 2 different directions.
It must be nice to work in a field where you can never be wrong.
One second Dark Energy wasn’t there…then poof..75% of the universe appears out of nowhere. Nobel Prizes are handed out, textbook are re-written. And now 20 years later..poof…Dark Energy could disappear just as fast. But the cosmological explanation of the universe was correct when Dark Energy didn’t exist. Then it was correct when Dark Energy did exist. And it will be correct if Dark Energy has to discarded from ‘scientific’ dogma.
It must be nice to work in a field where you can never be wrong.
And by the way, while cosmologists were doing the research…they discovered the earth is the center of the universe…but that’s not really a big deal is it?
LikeLike
Those are very nice results. Certainly they challenge the concept that any relative redshifts or blueshifts seen against these classes of astrophysical objects cannot be kinematic. It rules our gross Doppler motion and cosmological flows. It does strengthen the argument for galactocentrism but once you understand cosmology you realise nothing can be proven either. It is underdetermined. Thus there could always be multiple competing explanations for the same data.
LikeLike