Some unfortunately ignorant statements about the Big Bang.
The reason that the Big Bang (7 lines of evidence listed) is textbook science is because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. I also like What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (9 lines of evidence listed). When there are multiple independent, strong lines of evidence for something, that is overwhelming evidence.
The reason that the Big Bang is believed in by the vast majority of astronomers is that it has overwhelming evidence to support it.
There is not really a "state or place where the laws of physics does not apply". It is a time where the current laws of physics break down (they still apply but their results are nonsense). That time starts t = 0 and goes to t ~ 10^-43 seconds. From a picosecond afterward we have textbook physics of a cooling quark-gluon plasma. Your "initial picoseconds afterward" concerns are groundless.
A quote from Chronology of the universe with no source which is a pity because lower down there are more details.
A "Stephen Hawking can hypothesize how an expansion could happen out of nothing, i.e. very, very, very tiny invisible particles, he cannot explain the impossible happening after singularity" fantasy.
Nothing is not "very, very, very tiny invisible particles". Particles are something.
There is no "the impossible happening" after the singularity.
Stephen Hawking is dead
.
Upvote
0
.
