One thing

[velo]

Can any one name one thing that has increased our knowledge of how the

universe began or how it came into existence?

When i say (KNOWLEDGE), i mean anything that has a 99% CL. or may be

we can go in decending order of CL but, nothing below 95%.

[Sisyphus]

By the stupid grin, I assume it's a rhetorical question, but I don't understand what you're asking. You're asking what we know about the early universe with 95% certainty or higher?

[velo]

Well i am using English, and i do intend to question all the theories put forward

to explain the universe, no disrespectful intent, i tend to withdraw from discussions if they get heated, but the question stands.

And by the way, the word (stupid) is inflammatory, i suggest you restrict it to the ones that have been proven so.

[Sisyphus]

Calm down, it just isn't clear to me what you're asking, that's all. Or, for that matter, whether you're asking a genuine question or trying to make some point. Could you rephrase it, possibly, or give an example of what you're looking for?

[Severian]

I understand what you are asking. The difficulty is quantifying what one means by increasing knowledge of how the universe came into existance. If you mean the actual creation event itself, then there is no scientific observation that can add knowledge since it is an unscientific question.

 

On the other hand if 'how the universe began' includes the first few (micro)seconds, then pretty much all of particle physics and cosmology has added knowledge. For example, the WMAP measurements of the CMBR, or the particle physics measurements of the Standard Model.

 

As for confidence levels, it is interesting that cosmology and particle physics have different standards on what they are willing to report. Cosmology tends to report results at 2-sigma, which is about 95% CL (for example the WMAP exclusion in their plots is all 2-sigma).

 

Particle physics has two 2 levels of confidence it uses. If something is observed at 3-sigma (~99.7% CL) then it is termed 'evidence', so a paper 'Evidence for...' will be reporting a 3-sigma signal. But if they want to use the word 'discovery' (ie. making something a 'fact') then they use 5-sigma (which is 99.999943% CL)

[John Cuthber]

The fact that it goes dark at night imposes an interesting set of limits on the (early) universe.

[jackson33]

of course the question is one that may never be answered, IMO to even a 50% accuracy and then with little or no proof.

 

big bang and steady state, seem to be the current primary theories, even here with various ideas. under both scenarios however something or the entire has always been someplace.