QQC on Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything Intro

Quote: See Left

Comment: I thought this reading, though well written and certainly very entertaining to read, was nonetheless absurd. I disagree entirely with the author's description of the creation of the universe, for personal and other reasons. I find, however, that indeed the preceding passage, which describes the incredibly small size of a proton, very valuable to understanding part of the reason why the Big Bang, as Bryson describes it here is not really possible. Because the Big Bang describes the creation of the laws of physics, it also puts forth the possibility of changing the very laws we have come to know as constant and immovable. Changing the laws of physics would pose an incredibly large problem to physicists and researchers. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang, within 1 minute, expanded the universe to perhaps a space larger than 4085 light-years across (which is incredibly large compared to us, but incredibly small compared to even our own Milky Way Galaxy, which has satellite galaxies that are bigger) certainly provides evidence for dark energy, the universal "repelling" force. But there is only one problem with the presence of dark energy. At the time the universe was "created" according to the big bang, there was absolutely nothing. No quarks, no leptons (like the familiar electron), no exotic particles, no atoms, no helium or hydrogen, in fact, there was nothing. So dark energy is not responsible for this initial expansion of the universe, because it did not exist for at least the entire first second, when an incredible amount of creation was occurring. Indeed, the nuclei of hydrogen and helium and lithium did not appear until three minutes (which, by the way, was after the anti-matter particles were destroyed in a gigantic destruction phase that extended for perhaps a minute). So what caused the universe to expand for even the first minute, let alone the first three minutes (which cosmologists say are the most crucial parts of the big bang)? Even in the first 380,000 years (far longer than man has been a Homo sapiens) whole atoms were just a dream, and the atomic nuclei (i.e. Proton and Neutron masses) floated around without electrons to emit radiation in a controlled fashion. This brief discussion then brings me to my next assignment part:

Question: Why is something that is so unprovable (don't even think about trying to prove it--they can't and that's their job. All that they're doing is compiling evidence) considered so fundamental to science and the world, especially when its concept is so incomprehensible? (For incomprehensible, can you imagine a singularity that exists not in nothing, but rather, is the existence? I mean, even my description of what it really is is confusing enough.)