Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins

by Niayesh Afshordi, Phil Halper

A thrilling exploration of competing cosmological origin stories, comparing new scientific ideas that upend our very notions of space, time, and reality.

 

By most popular accounts, the universe started with a bang some 13.8 billion years ago. But what happened before the Big Bang? Here prominent cosmologist Niayesh Afshordi and science communicator Phil Halper offer a tour of the peculiar bouncing and cyclic universes, time loops, creations from nothing, multiverses, black hole births, string theories, and holograms. Along the way, they offer both a call for new physics and a riveting story of scientific debate.

 

Incorporating Afshordi’s cutting-edge research and insights from Halper’s original interviews with scientists like Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Alan Guth, Battle of the Big Bang compares these models for the origin of our origins, showing each theory’s strengths and weaknesses and explaining new attempts to test these theories. Battle of the Big Bang is a tale of rivalries and intrigue, of clashes of ideas that have raged from Greek antiquity to the present day over whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning, whether it is unique or one of many. But most of all, Afshordi and Halper show that this search is filled with wonder, discovery, and community—all essential for remembering a forgotten cosmic past.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Physics, Astronomy, Space

360 pages, Hardcover

First published May 29, 2025

Reviews

[Kara Babcock]

Hate to DNF an eARC (from NetGalley and publisher University of Chicago Press), but I just cannot with Battle of the Big Bang. It’s written like a fever dream of a science book, and on every page I was left asking, who is this book for?

Niayesh Afshordi is a cosmologist; Phil Halper is a science comms YouTuber. Together, they’ve teamed up to write a tour of cosmology. They trace the various theories of the origins of the universe, from steady-state to the different Big Bang theories out there. Then the book gets down to the fine details of what cosmologists are battling about today: inflation, spontaneous genesis from nothing, branes, etc. Some of it is stuff I had heard or read about before, though perhaps not in years. Some of it is brand new, and it’s a shame I didn’t finish the book, because I really was interested.

First, a small disclaimer: I was reading this on my Kindle, and it was converted from a PDF galley. Somehow the conversion wasn’t able to read any of the numerals present in the text, so all years and quantities were just … omitted (and quantities are kind of important in physics). Similarly, all ligatures with the letter “f” were gone. So … that made for an interesting read. Yet I persevered, for that is not the fault of the authors, and it’s not why I didn’t finish the book.

No, I DNFed this behemoth because I was a third of the way through the book and felt like I was spinning my wheels. Afshordi and Halper just have no sense of how to tell a story in prose—a complaint I recently levelled at Proof as well. Most popular science books, when they want to tell a story of a complex topic like cosmology, ground each chapter in a singular story, usually with a particular person as a main character. Afshordi and Halper seem to want to do this, but they can’t manage to find their narrative. Instead, they get bogged down in details and gossip and talking about multiple people at once—some of whom are still alive—such that Battle of the Big Bang feels like it’s inside baseball, meant for other physicists.

Similarly, this book is not for the faint of heart. The authors brag about there being no equations, but honestly, we need to dismantle that Hawking shibboleth already: please publish physics books with equations! I am fine with it. I am a mathematician. I get that this is a book from an academic press rather than a big publisher, so maybe it is meant for a more technical audience … in which case, though, why is this a book and not a peer-reviewed lit review paper?

That’s my main complaint. Battle of the Big Bang feels like it’s trying to be popular science when in reality it’s too technical and too much engrossed by insider gossip from the scientific community to be interesting or even comprehensible to lay readers. I now understand why most physicists don’t write popular science books.

Originally posted on Kara.Reviews.

[Peter Tillman]

WSJ review: https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/book...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"“Battle of the Big Bang” brilliantly humanizes such abstract speculations by highlighting the powerplays and publicity struggles of competing scientific teams. “Science is a messy business that involves more politics than meets the eye,” the authors warn. One scientist describes inflation theorists as “religious zealots” who “feel offended if someone doubts their idea.” Some researchers are described as “insurgent”; others are “much better at marketing” than their competitors. Another says of a paper that poses a challenge to his view: “This is serious. We have to destroy it.” (“As we say in Persian,” Mr. Afshordi remarks, “two beggars can sleep on a rug, but two kings can’t fit in a land.”) The upshot is a reminder that science is, after all, a social practice pursued by fallible apes. That it should ever get close to the truth is itself a miracle."

[Nikola Dukic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Either I’m not as smart as I thought I was or I’m not as interested in the Big Bang as I thought I was, but this was difficult for me to follow. Interesting concepts, although I suppose it’s a good thing I never became an astronaut.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Science doubts so that it can grow. The possible landscapes of possibilities for creation get muddled by false certainties. I’ve been searching for a book that realistically highlights our current state of understanding the universe(s) origin before the big bang.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and gravitational waves are inspiring new ways to think about the beginning of everything and with testable hypotheses.

The authors made Occam’s Razor “only the simplest model that fits the data will survive.” Their motive for writing this book was “to give a glimpse of science at the edge of the knowledge, past the cutoff; to show that it involves not just theoretical conjectures, equations, and experiments, but is also a human process, full of conflict and emotion: bitterness, hope, doubt, and belief. But another motive for the book was to show readers that the public have been misled. Controversies supposedly resolved by modern cosmology are very much alive. The Big Bang does not prove that the universe had a beginning, and dark energy does not rule out cyclic behavior.”

The authors succeeded in their intentions. This book was necessary for me to get up to speed in a coherent way.

[Cameron Burkholder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating tour through the world of early universe cosmology and the myriad of theories as to what came before the big bang. I was previously only nominally familiar with alternatives to inflation, and so getting into the weeds of debates cosmologists are having today was super interesting.

[Yasaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not particularly effective at constructing narratives, to the point where I kind of wished Afshordi hadn't bothered, but then it's not like it needs to be, per se. It's a competent enough overview of various theories of the creation of the universe, and it does a good job of explaining those theories' successes and failures. If your last science class or textbook more or less told you "the universe started with the Big Bang" as settled scientific fact/well-supported theory, this book takes pains to demonstrate that it's not nearly so cut and dry, and that there are plenty of competing theories.

Probably this book is not suited to a total novice? As someone who took a couple relevant classes back in college, and who's read a couple books and watched some Youtube videos since then, I was struggling at some points, and had to tab away to look things up or remind myself of definitions. Also, the more esoteric and abstract things got, the harder it was to wrap my head around. There were definitely multiple points where I was wishing for, like, a Veritasium video to explain things better.

Anyway, tl;dr, we do not in fact know how the universe began yet. (In fact, the universe might not have "begun" at all; we haven't entirely ruled out it being eternal, or wildly enough, it being a giant time loop.) I really liked that this book set forth the strengths and weaknesses of various theories, and if or how they could be supported or falsified with data.

[2025 READING CHALLENGE: COMPLEX SIMPLICITY]

[J Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Battle of the Big Bang, by Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper, is an accessible but not easy account of the current theories on our cosmic origins. It is also quite readable considering the strangeness of many of the ideas discussed.

First I will comment on what I meant with my accessibility comment. We all have some kind of interest in many things. But some of those things we just want someone to tell us the basics, we don't want them to involve much work on our part, namely because we have other things we are willing to put the work into. It isn't about whether we can do the work but whether we care enough to want to. In areas that aren't central to our lives, we make personal hierarchies. If your interest is simple curiosity this book will still be a good read for you but you will find yourself skimming some of the discussion to get to whatever points you want to keep. If your interest level is higher, you will be very happy because the math is minimal (and largely mentioned in a way to express what it did not how it did it) and the analogies (mostly thanks to Halper's role as a science communicator) make the ideas easier to grasp, at least as far as most laypeople want or need to grasp them. I will also mention that you need to go deeper into the book than the first few chapters since it is setting the stage for the new ideas. This book doesn't just start explaining new ideas to a general audience that might not know how we got to the point where these ideas became important. Yes, the first few chapters will be somewhat familiar to many readers, but having read something years ago doesn't mean you would have had it front of mind without the review. Any teacher knows the value of reviewing before moving on to new material. It is the review that helps to make the rest of the book relatively understandable for non-astrophysicists.

I probably touched on the strengths of the book in the previous paragraph, so I won't belabor the points. If you have some understanding but nowhere near astrophysicist level, this will be a wonderful way to get up-to-date. No theory is being argued for here, they are being presented, with their respective pros and cons. This also allows you to seek more information on the theories you might find most interesting, though you may, like I did, have to use a university library to access some of it.

If you have enough interest to be willing to work a little, thinking through the explanations as best you can, you will enjoy this book. I would also recommend this to those pursuing a career in the sciences who might be considering astrophysics, this may just pique your interest enough to point you in a direction.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

The impression given by many popular accounts is that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, springing from a singularity of infinite temperature, density, etc. beyond which there was no time, space, or anything. In other words, the Big Bang is the Beginning, before which was nothing, or at least nothing we can hope to understand, and nothing more can or ever will be said.

Battle of the Big Bang is an attempt to challenge that characterization and clarify how we currently understand the Big Bang. The truth is that we do not actually know. that the Big Bang is The Beginning. The hot Big Bang (that the universe was once smaller, hotter, and denser and has evolved into its current form over billions of years) is uncontroversial, but everything else is up for grabs, despite how cosmologists present it. It’s not that we have no idea of what the Big Bang was and what caused it. Indeed, it is quite the opposite: we almost have too many ideas regarding the beginning, or not, of the universe and the Big Bang. What we don’t have is enough evidence to say if any of them are right, or even on the right track.

On the surface, then, Battle of the Big Bang seems little more than a slightly-more-complicated entry in the popular cosmology genre. It, happily, distinguishes itself, though, in a few ways:

Scientists are people too. Afshordi’s personal experience “in the trenches” as a theorist, combined with Halpern’s extensive interviews with cosmologists, provide no doubt that cosmologists can be petty, stubborn, cantankerous, and downright catty. Cosmological models being in contention can lead to cosmological theorists being in contention. It’s not all high-minded, coldly logical argument, though, in the end, the math, experiment, and observation all have the final say. As with any group of people one is far removed from, accounts of this internecine squabbling can be great vicarious fun.

Perhaps the greatest strength of Battle of the Big Bang is that it doesn’t just focus on the big names, either people or theories, you get in most overviews like Hawking, Guth, and Linde, no-boundary proposals and eternal inflation, but scores of other, less well-known ideas and researchers. That also may be its main drawback, if you can classify it as such: there are a lot of names and ideas flying at you all at once. It can be a bit disorienting and confusing, but worth it.

Those completely new to cosmology might have difficult time, but anyone with half an idea will find Battle of the Big Bang a rewarding and educational work.

[Dana Nourie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a treasure trove, especially now with so many competing theories to the Big Bang theory, and the plethora of data that has been streaming into cosmology from new maths to gravitational waves. Something that has annoyed me in the past few decades is how cosmologists throw around the word “theory”, very loosely and without evidence from the actual universe. After reading this book, I’m realizing it’s always been that way really, and the textbook definition of theory doesn’t lend well to leading edge exploration. And the complexity of the universe doesn’t lend itself well to such restrictions. That said . . .

The problems with the Big Bang theory have been known for a long time, with a lot of very smart people working on those problems. In recent decades with many new minds on the problems, new “theories” for how our universe may have come about are taking a new look not just at old problems, but other issues as well. This book takes a look at the history of big bang thinking, bringing forth the brilliant people who have challenged it, as well as those who feel some alternatives to only certain areas are in order.

The authors have done a superb job of bringing in the many physicists, where they play a role, what sparked them to want to work on these problems, as well as alternative theories to the Big Bang. This book also describes the tension and sometimes downright conflict between the scientists, some almost cultish like behavior, as well as some of the great partnerships and triumphs. In spite of the many characters who parade across the pages, the scientific problems described, and the possible solutions, this book is easy to follow, a pleasure to read, and incredibly hard to put down.

Science textbooks have tried to write the Big Bang theory into stone, talking about it as though it were fact. But is it? I found this book a fascinating exploration into the theory itself, how scientists have rejiggered things a bit to make it work, and what other solutions may be a better fitting model from strings, to loops, to bouncing to black holes. I’d like to think I’ll hear about an answer before I die but the origin of our universe won’t be resolved any time soon I’m afraid. Fascinating to learn what cosmologists are up to in this area.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished battling through this book. Its basic premise is that the story that most of us hear: that the Big Bang was a singularity that started the universe, is no longer accepted by physicists. If you've already heard that, you might think that cosmic inflation is the replacement theory and that it's done and dusted (I was more or less in this camp). Well, this book says that's not true either - here are 24 other theories that are out there now, and we don't have enough data to tell which one's right.

So I thought it was valuable, but I do wish I had understood the theories a bit better. More diagrams might have helped, I was surprised that they weren't scattered throughout. Perhaps as a consequence of my lack of understanding, I didn't understand how the theories were grouped together into chapters, either. Later I came across the appendix which has a table of all the theories, which was super useful and which I wish I'd come across earlier so I could have taken better notes.

Besides the lack of clarity (which to be fair may be partially my fault), this book is written in a rather gossipy style: we hear who the main proponents are, who the opponents are, and sometimes even stuff about their personal lives. I don't know if this really helped me understand anything, but I guess it was a break from the hard physics and a bit of an insight into the kind of academic politics that we like to pretend doesn't exist in science, but sure does.

So I'm glad I read this, I wish I'd taken away more from it. I could probably have done equally well with a short book with only a handful of key alternative theories and a few diagrams describing them.

[Francis Tapon · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins" examines the most profound idea: how did the universe begin?

Although I'm not a physicist, I have read many books about the Big Bang, physics, and the universe.

This book is an in-depth exploration of the competing models that hypothesize about our origins.

I appreciated learning about the Ekpyrotic universe and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), two novel ideas. For instance, CCC posits that "the universe is cyclic but never re-collapses. Each eon expands until all mass disappears."

"In the Ekpyrotic universe, the movement of the branes is controlled by a springlike force, operating in a higher dimension. What was being suggested was that this force is felt in our reality as dark energy."

I also appreciated that the book included several illustrations that were essential for grasping these counterintuitive topics.

One of the authors, Phil Halper, is a well-known YouTuber.

The other co-author is Niayesh Afshordi, a cosmologist.

I loved the illustrations! I wish there were more of them!

Disclosure: I interviewed Phil Halper on my WanderLearn Show and received an advance copy of the book from the publisher.

[Jamie Barringer (Ravenmount) · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is always hard to guess at how readable a cosmology book or theoretical physics book will be for the general public. The ideas involved are complicated and otherworldly enough that they take a lot of getting used to and it seems like it would take a lot of math mastery to really follow the various models described in this book for how the universe began, and how it works. That said, this was a fun history of the contending models for what happened at and perhaps before the Big Bang, with enough description of each model to get some idea of what it claims and how it might be tested. I also liked the philosophy of science segment closer to the end of this book, looking at the role of belief/religion in cosmology and cosmological questions, and at what makes something science. This may be a tough read for people new to the subject matter, but for the general reader who has absorbed some cosmology already, this should be a fun book.

[Kate Godfrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. As someone without any formal education in physics or cosmology, there were some terms I looked up and I know there will have been some finer details which escaped me. However, it is written in such a way to allow the casual but curious reader to enjoy and follow the overall discussion, whilst being at a depth that would undoubtedly hold the attention of those with a professional level of understanding (as testified to by the review comments on the books cover).

The discussion provided on the historical development of proposals and research studies and the individuals and politics involved, gave a real insight into the world of physics and cosmological research. This was richly aided by the direct quotes from the interviews carried out with some of the biggest names in this field.
A must read for anyone with an interest the Big Bang and what we know or don’t currently know, about it.

[Norbert S · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book stands as a tour de force through the vast landscape of astrophysical theories and discoveries, offering an insider’s perspective on the evolution of our current understanding of the universe. As the author strives to make advanced mathematical and physical concepts accessible to a general readership, his urgency to be understood becomes palpable. Yet this leads occasionally to uneven moments, when anecdotes meant to lighten the exposition often feel more like diversions than contributions. Most annoying, however, are the repeated forays into religious reflection. For me - as reader with a physics background, these digressions felt unwelcome and misplaced.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

despite my efforts there were large portions of this that were very hard to follow and so in the end it was a struggle to get through. but nevertheless - charming and thoughtful book on the state of things, so to speak, in modern cosmology. in particular i was absolutely fascinated by the idea of darwinism and natural selection in a theory of cosmology now where's the christopher nolan film about that

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 4 out of 5]

What happened before the Big Bang? This book explores the leading theories about the universe’s origins, examining their strengths and weaknesses through cutting-edge research and interviews with leading scientists. The book is informative and fairly technical—an interesting read for fans of cosmology and theoretical physics.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent volume for an overview of the various models used by cosmologists to try and discover the beginning of the universe (or the lack of a beginning). Afshordi explains the models well without any math, and even-handedly. I especially liked that Afshordi makes clear that no one knows what happened as the data to determine this is lacking, and so everyone should show some humility when talking about the advantages of any particular model.

[Yeezy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've never been satisfied with the Big Bang explanation, which is why I really like the ideas in this book. It offers a supermarket of perspectives on how everything originated, making the universe and even the world we live in even more mysterious. Although it's a bit difficult to read, the provided cheat sheets are very handy.

[Jr]

Did not finish this book. For me it got too technical after the first couple of chapters, however I did gain valuable insights by just reading select passages, chapters, etc. I didn't realize how unsettled the science really is behind the universe's origins, so from that angle I really enjoyed it!

[WRH · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book about the origins of our universe. I learned there are many theories beyond the Big Bang, none of which can be proved so far. The physics went way over my head but it was fascinating to hear about the different concepts for how it all started.

[Ed Kazyanskaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

So many fascinating concepts introduced, of which I could only understand about 20%. I wish it was dumbed down just a tad for this non-physicist scientist

[Mansoor · Rating 4 out of 5]

"These debates are not new but have antecedents that stretch back thousands of years. And despite what you may have read elsewhere, they have not been settled."

[George Kanakaris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for anyone with an interest in the Big Bang and what we know or don’t currently know, about it , with emphasis on the latter.

[Steve]

Interesting idea for a book that is poorly executed.

[Philemon - · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story is told without visible formulas, but the science as presented may be too technical and abstract for most non-physicists. There were too many chatty digressions; they might have been welcome if the central issues had been better explained. I did receive kind of a feel for the types of proof needed to get largely speculative theories into the running.