Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Probably not, because it doesn't exist. There is no scientific theory of the origins of the universe. Any theory that might have a hope would involve quantum gravity, which has yet to be invented/discovered. The Big Bang is a theory of the ancient expansion of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It develops a mathematical singularity whenever you attempt to push it further back than it can go. It's as simple as that.

Hey, Buz. Bad grammar. The universe is a single object so I should just say origin. Just the way I speak. Good question. It's a bit like starting of a story with an object in mid-air falling to the ground. A object falling to the ground is perfectly consistent with the laws of gravity and motion. However the story leaves it open as to how it all started. Similarly the Big Bang theory begins with the universe going through an expansion. This expansion is consistent with (and required by) General Relativity. However it is left open as to how it began.
We know that this expansion itself occured thanks to confirmed predictions from General Relativity and Cosmology, but there is currently no information on:
(a)Was it expanding before then?
(b)From what?
(c)For how long? If that question makes sense.

There is evidence for expansion, in the sense that we have observed the universe expanding and know it did so more rapidly in the past.
There is less evidence (although there is still evidence) for inflation, the extremely early, hyper-fast expansion that occured during the earliest periods our models can discuss.
There is no evidence for the Inflaton, the hypothetical scalar field postulated to be responsible for inflation.

I think it would be good to delineate exactly what is and isn't "The Big Bang theory" and also what is or isn't accepted science.To begin with I will label time by T, as you are all familiar with. You may think of T as a parameter which labels how close a given period is to the breakdown of General Relativity.Periods of which we have no knowledge:
0 < T < 10^-43
Regime of Quantum Gravity, nothing is known. No specific statment is made about this period, as virtually nothing is known.Periods involving very speculative physics:
10^-43 < T < 10^-36
Possibly, supersymmetry and unification of electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces occurs here. Possibly monopoles are present.Periods involving speculative physics:
10^-36 < T <10^-32
Rapid inflation is believed to have occurred, of which there is good observational support. Possibly driven by scalar field. Particle physics is very exotic involving strange particles which are rare today. The strong nuclear force probably separated from the electroweak force at this time.Periods involving known physics
Everything after this is the Big Bang theory. The observational support for what follows is extremely strong.10^-32 > T >10^-12
Electroweak era. Completely understood with very solid observational support. Particles are governed by electroweak and strong forces. Spacetime is expanding and will continue to do so until today.10^-12 > T > 1
Universe cools to the point where electromagnetism and the weak force separate. Particles are now governed by the physics we see today.
Protons and Neutrons form.1 > T > 300,000 years
Atoms slowly begin to form as the universe's temperature lowers. Most of the energy of the universe is possessed by light. Light cannot travel freely because it continuously interacts with matter. The seeds of galaxy formation occur in this era as small inhomogeneities in the universe form. Eventually at the end of this epoch, light is released from captivity with matter and most photons never interact again.300,000 years > T > 500,000,000 years
The universe's expansion continues, but slows in pace. Supermassive black holes form, leading to the creation of galaxies. Big Bang theory ends here. Theories of galaxy and star formation and cosmological development take over.

Yes, it results from a breakdown in the mathematics of General Relativity. No, it isn't there. The singularity is not real, hence it is not there. The singularity does not go anywhere because it wasn't there in the first place. It is simply a sign of the breakdown of General Relativity. It is something which happens to the theory itself and not a proposed origin of the universe.Anything Hawking says in a public talk doesn't matter. Several errors in these kind of talks are made for the sake of brevity.

Yes, that is correct.
Another singularity (a place where the maths of General Relativity breaks down) is inside black holes. In this case nothing about the interior of the black hole is alluded to.
What Hawking and Penrose first became famous for was a series of papers where they established under exactly what conditions General Relativity has singularities.

Just to explain notation, T = 10^-12 means T = 0.000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang for example. Nobody knows. Think of it being like Ancient Rome. We have a detailed history of the city itself, but the events leading to its founding are a bit vague. Hence there are a lot of ideas and disagreement about that period.
Similarly with regard to the Big Bang, nothing is known about the period T<10^-43. Hence there are several different ideas about what went on. The most commonly held opinion is that the physics starts to be governed by Quantum Gravity. Other opinions are that this doesn't happen and instead prior T = 10^-40 the universe was actually contracting from a previous cycle when it was enormous. In this cyclic model the universe is eternal. Basically we don't know and don't claim anything definite about the universe prior to T = 10^-32.

The expansion of the universe is very, very slow. The only reason it has an effect is because it happens to the whole universe. It's nowhere near fast enough to overcome the speed and attraction of the Milky Way and Andromeda.

Instantons are generic feature of many field theories and are certainly not dreamed up to avoid God. Hawking and Turok are simply looking at an instanton which occurs in a field theory where one of the fields is spacetime itself.If anybody wants to know what an instanton is I'll explain. Basically you can formulate quantum mechanics in a such a way that instead of there being wavefunctions, e.t.c. all you have is "a sum over paths".
This basically means that I can work out the probability for a particle to go from point a to point b by adding up the contribution to this probability from each path connecting a and b. It turns out most of the probability comes from the path predicted by classical physics.In field theory, this "sum over paths" is more complicated. Here we are working out the probability for a field to go from a certain confirguration at time t1 to another configuration at time t2 by adding up the probabilities for each "field history" or "field evolution" that could happen between t1 and t2. Again a lot of the probability comes from histories which are possible in the classical theory, rather than the purely quantum paths. These classical field histories are known as instantons. Their effect on the probability obatined from "the sum over paths" is responsible for phenomena such as tunneling.

Instantons are all the same kind of thing, a physical thing, which is why they all have one name "Instantons". There are no "math" instantons or "physical" instantons.In Turok and Hawking's model, there isn't an "absence of anything". The fields are already there, they are simply in their ground state, which for spacetime means no actual space and time for stuff to exist in. However the fields are there, otherwise whose paths would you be summing over in Feynman's "sum over paths". I appreciate that in most of the links this isn't even vaguely explained and it is quite difficult to grasp with familiarity.Edited by Son Goku, : Small additionEdited by Son Goku, : Funny mental mix up.

Heh, that's funny. ISAW is Irish Science Awareness, a group that brings science to secondary level students. I was recently reading something of theirs. If by temporal you mean a universe where there is a finite amount of time in the past direction, then yes. If there was an accepted model which addresses the universe's creation then I could assess the other two. Even in proposed models you don't start from literally nothing and these models definitely obey known physical principles.