Initial evidence for the Big Bang came in the 1930s when the universe was found to be expanding with observation of a red shift in light from distant galaxies. But the clinching evidence was the discovery in the 1960s of a faint background level of radiation wherever we looked in the universe. Cosmologists argued this background radiation was the residual radiation from the Big Bang. But now the story is looking less straightforward and more unknown. Firstly we found the universe is not just moving but accelerating away from us undermining the redshift as proof of the Big Bang. Meanwhile, the cosmic background radiation, or CMB, requires many ad hoc additions to account for its distribution. Moreover, recent findings from the James Webb telescope have found discrepancies with Big Bang predictions for the universe.
Might Cosmic Background Radiation turn out not to be a relic of the Big Bang at all? In combination with the puzzle of the accelerating universe is it possible that the whole current cosmological model and the Big Bang theory itself might be at risk? Or does Big Bang work so well that it would be a mistake to contemplate radical alternatives?
Host of the biggest cosmology show on YouTube, PBS Space Time, Matt O'Dowd, black hole researcher and student of Stephen Hawking Marika Taylor, and astrophysicist and philosopher Martín López Corredoira debate the aftermath of the Big Bang story.