That the universe had a beginning is generally accepted whether by scientists, those who blithely believe whatever the latest scientific fashion is without understanding it, those who take science with a grain of salt because of theological commitments or those who reject science entirely because of their religious beliefs.
Indeed, the best version of the big bang theory, Hawking's "null initial condition" version is a wonderful mathematical model of what a universe created ex nihilo would look like from within when viewed retrospectively. (And none of either is equal amounts!)
Every great Quantum physicist that ever lived said it all had to start with a thought, a conscience nudge, or a word. They stop short of calling it "God."
"In the beginning was the word. The word was with God, and the word was God." - Holy Bible
Both Quantum Physics and theology agree. They both say the same thing. Great thinkers had started out attempting to disprove the existence of God, yet they end up going full circle back to a "creator". The start. The thought. The word.
"When the universe began with the big bang, matter and antimatter were present in equal amounts."
Well I find it a bit funny the way the above was stated. As if it were an absolute fact that we know there were equal quantities of matter and antimatter when it all "began". Do we really "know" that? We may well theorize that but we can't really know in absolute terms.
Not so. We can't know some things, and even time itself is an idea and perhaps not the ultimate reality. Did time have a beginning? What if it did, what if it didn't. There could be two mathematical theories, one says it did, the other says it didn't, and both theories could describe everything we see.
a) Is there really only one theory in science that the author of this article can make such a statement? Are there absolutely no other theories, even in the world of science?
b) Even if that is accepted as "the" theory is it proper to make such a matter-of-fact statement as if there were the first-hand knowledge to do so?
A more accurate statement would be along the lines of: In the [Xyz] big bang theory of the beginning of the universe, matter and antimatter were present in equal amounts.
"the best version of the big bang theory, Hawking's "null initial condition""
I thought that had been put on the back burner. All I know is what I read in Brian Greene's new book "Fabric of the Cosmos". I thought the most popular model was one where there is a finite distance between particles in the beginning,(instead of nothing as Hawking said) and the Higg's field "catches" on some sort of statistical improbability and massively expands.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
It's fascinating stuff, but personally I think they are quite far from some sort of grand unified theory.