The singularity is certainly a complete breakdown, but our current physics breaks down long before (after?) you get there. The detail is arguable, but roughly, inside the Planck time (10^-43s), we do not have a theoretical framework for things. It's generally assumed this era requires a proper quantum theory of gravity, which we don't have. In fact you can argue that we don't really understand the following epoch where all the forces other than gravity were unified (10^-36s).
And even if we find a good quantum theory of gravity, that may still only get us a bit further and leave a new puzzle.
I'm optimistic about our ability to continue to make progress, but fairly sceptical about the idea that we might one day understand everything.
Plank Time is an excellent point! We know we can’t ‘know’ about events shorter then that but there’s more problems w/ the Big Bang mythology then that.
It’s said that there was nothing else but the singularity and that the singularity was very hot, nearly infinitely hot. Then if there was no other ‘place’, the singularity existed everyplace that was someplace so the Big Bang didn’t start at a point, it occured ‘everywhere’ and at the same time as there was no other reference frame
Also If there was no extension to the singularity it can’t be hot because heat is a kinetics concept. If there was no space between the matter/energy - whatever - and there were no particles yet, then there was nothing to go going bumpity-bump and no room for bumpity-bump to occur in - so the definition of heat is out the window.
When cosmologist figure it was some 380,000 years before light could emerge from the expanding event, the mass of the expansion was huge, far far geater then millions or millions of billions of black holes. From General Relativity we know satellites operate on a different metrics then Earth-based stations to account for the difference in rate of time between the two locations in the gravitationsl field (as time slows deeper in gravitational wells) then one can’t use Earth years to calculate times in the Big Bang, so the calulate 380,000 years could actually be 380,000 trillion billion year due to the high mass of the system so out notion about the age of the Universe is nonsense.
The Big Bang is ‘chaulk onthe board’ but it’s gets as sensationalized as TV can make it. Basic ideas are thrown out the window for the sake of the math. Simplistic assumptions are made for the whole Universe - presume space is isotropic. I thought the term Big Bang was replaced by the term Inflationary Model back in the 80s. As an aside I think it was Sir Roger Penrose who worked out the behavior of previous Big Bangs. He also did this without String Theory working in 3 dimensions plus time (heresy). I believe some of Penrose’s ideas are worked into String Theory, but Penrose’s cosmological model worked in 3 dimensions plus time.
But I digress....