39 8

Are there any other theories aside from the mainstream big bang theory that you think is a likely explanation of our universe?

I have heard of a few scientific theories that aim to explain the origin of our universe that I think are interesting. There is String Theory, for example.. Or the theory where the universe started from different, smaller explosions... Or a multiverse theory where our universe may be one of many universes out there that formed in the same way galaxies are born but on a bigger scale. There's even Simulation Theory that people like Elon Musk find possible. Do any of you subscribe to other theories aside from the mainstream Big Bang Theory as an explanation for the origins of our universe? Let me know what you think smile001.gif

39 comments

13

Pure bs, its turtles all the way down

Sea turtles or freshwater?

7

Gonna be a little nitpicky but please bear with me.
I think most of the theories you listed are complimentary rather than being in opposition to one another.

Technically Big Bang Theory applies to what happened immediately after the universe already existed. The multiverse is one explanation of what preceded (and caused) the local big bang, and it also links to cosmic inflation (also the leading theory for the expansion of the early universe). Some inflation models still require a "big bang" of sorts to kick-start the process while others are eternal in both past and future directions.

String theory is separate from all of this and could conceivably explain any and all of the above, albeit at very tiny scales.

None of this rules out the universe being a simulation, because that hypothesis could theoretically apply to any theory, as far as I am aware. The only requirement I can think of for simulation theory is that the parent universe (and even the simulator machine) must contain more energy than the child universe (ours). Otherwise the simulation would not run at "real time" (which may or may not be the case).

Probably my favourite scenario is that of the universe coming from a white hole, effectively we are the other side of a black hole in a parent universe. One feature I like about this idea is that it suggests a kind of cosmic natural selection where the laws of physics are optimised over time to produce more black holes. It turns out this laws are also good for life. It's just an idea and not one I put much belief in. I'm agnostic until evidence presents itself.

If I may correct myself... The simulation wouldn't necessarily require more energy than the universe it simulates. Energy is probably the wrong term, since it is postulated that the total energy of our universe is actually zero, or very close to it. But my thinking is that in order to simulate a particle, the simulator must be made of at least the same or greater number of particles, or else the simulation will run "slower" than real time. Of course the simulated objects would experience time at normal speed so perhaps this is irrelevant...

Ah, it's a cool thought experiment. The correct answer at present is that we don't know, and perhaps we'll never know, but we'll (I say in the royal "we" sense as someone who is not a scientist) keep looking for as long as we can

"White Hole"?.....racist cosmology. smile009.gif

@archer5691 Perhaps it could have been a "shit hole" per Trump.

@archer5691 yeah... why it gotta be white?

@pepperjones white is the new black?

Wow, intellectual maturity is in short supply it seems. Black holes are so named because no light can escape from them. White holes are simply the opposite (no light can return). They are theoretical.

Edited

With black holes the event horizon is in the future. With white holes the event horizon is in the past. There is some question over whether the big bang could be a white hole, but I think it's an interesting idea.

5

To clear up some misconception: neither string theory nor multiverse are alternatives to big bang. Neither is the simulation hypothesis since the big bang could still be simulated.

One of my favorite alternatives however is Roger Penrose's Confromal Cyclic Universe. This is the latest in a brand of theories that say that Universe doesn't "bang" or doesn't "bang" just once but rather expands and contracts as a lung would. It doesn't require a singularity; only that when matter is dense enough it starts repealing in an outwards cycle and when matter is rarefied enough, it starts to contract.

never heard of Confromal Cyclic Universe but def will look in to it. thanks for sharing.

5

Many people say that trump did it. And it's the best universe, this I can tell you.

Lol!

Sad.

5

I wonder if it's a cycle. It's hypothesised the universe will keep expanding, leading to cosmological event horizon and possibly heat death and this will cause a rip or a tear to occur.

This plants the seed in my mind that the tear could create a singularity, like the posited big bang. So I wonder if our observable universe is expanding within the remnants of a previous universe.

It’s called state change, similar to water turning into ice if it happens nothing will be the same and no awareness will survive.

@Mortal

Thank you for that. That's very interesting.

I've just been reading about it.. So 'cracks', what ever they are, could prove the theory. I wonder how the cracks would manifest.

4

Multiverse hypothesis = Big Bang still happened
Smaller explosions = Big Bang still happeneed
Simulaton hypothesis = Big Bang still happened

String Theory isn't an origin theory, it's just theory of trying to understand particles and how they interact in our universe.

The big bang is the only theory we have at the moment that is demonstrable true. Anything more than that is just a hypothesis.

But CREATION!!!! D'uh! XD

4

I’m not a physicist and, and not arrogant enough to subscribe to a theory I don’t understand. If the scientific consensus is X, then I try to understand X to the extent that a scientifically literate layperson can.

4

I like the Silva Neves theory that the universe has always existed, and keeps expanding and contracting in cycles

Since there is no direct evidence of the original singularity, (Collecting information from that first moment of expansion is impossible with current methods.) Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves claims it may never have existed.

Silva says, "there are many observations in cosmology" that support the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, but no direct evidence that this expansion started with a singularity."

Instead, the universe is eternally undergoing a cycle of contraction and expansion. These alternating phases smoothly follow each other like the phases of the tide.

Similar to the original singularity from which the universe emerged, black holes are believed to have a point of infinite density in their center. But while a point of "infinite" mass can exist easily on paper, scientists have always struggled with how such a thing could exist in reality.

And general relativity suggests that the normal laws of physics break down inside a singularity, and thus it offers little guidance to resolve this conundrum.

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative [shar.es] via @SPACEdotcom

3

Because Christians can not figure out how the universe began they like to say "God did it." But have "faith" .....eventually SCIENCE will supply the answer.

3

The origin of the universe is not a question that has ever cost me any sleep. We are here and this is happening: okay, then.

3

The big bang has the only evidence we can directly observe due to redshift. The further an object is from us the faster it’s racing away from us. All other theories are based in some abstract mathematical modeling that’s in most cases unverifiable.
Still, we haven't resolved many things in this model like how relativity is a factor. Since we know universal expansion is accelerating it follows that in the distant past it was much slower, which skews everything we know, from the age of the universe to the factors associated with the accepted ”facts” about the state of the universe when it was the size of a basketball or a planet or a modern galaxy. But this is science and we are constantly learning more.
While our ignorance in the past has been well established, our ignorance in the present just keeps being a revelation that many find hard to accept.

3

Our minds are limited to the space/time/matter model, which is nothing but illusion. Questions about when and how the universe sprang into existence can not be answered with that model, and from a higher perspective the questions are simply not meaningful.

I am just reading “Reality is not What it Seems”, by Carlo Rovelli, a physicist who is working on the theories of quantum gravity. According to Rovelli, time does not exist.

The experience of reality is truly awesome and thrilling and joyous, but the implications are baffling in the extreme.

I'm gonna get that book, it sounds interesting.

Rovelli must have been a busy guy. Sometimes I get busy and feel there is no time.

3

The "beginning" of the universe is the most mind boggling concept to me. On one hand, how could it have been here "forever"? On the other hand, how could something spontaneously "arise" from nothing--or evolve from nothing? How did the elements of its creation exist as they, too, would have arisen from "nothing"? Multiverses do not explain these issues. Perhaps there was a big bang, but that leads back to the original issues of something from nothing.

I sometimes lie awake at night, pondering these questions.

Try considering the word forever as a temporally reliant word, that only has meaning in a universe where linear time exists.
Step outside of time and picture the whole of of time and space as something static not moving, a ball of potential, self sustaining, self created, self aware.
All that is, was and will be, constantly present, unchanging and complete, within which is every potential outcome, every action and in action including it not being there at all.

Now imagine you can don a suit that is called time, wearing this you can enter the ball and move around it, interact with it in sequential sets of events, see thing as the inhabitants see them.

This thing IS it never WAS NOT, never will not be, because time exists only within it, not outside of it.

The big bang is simply at its core, it's out shell though seen with in as the end, is just another part of the eternal whole.

Take time out the equations and see if that allows you to comprehend existence objectively.

@LenHazell53 Oh, I am well aware that linear time only applies to those of us who live on planets that revolve around stars. In light of eternity--regardless of how one defines "eternity"--time has no meaning: it does not exist.

That still does not lessen my bogglement.

@Gwendolyn2018
Time exists as much as space exist. For you are correct, time requires some repeatable measure to give it substance, to set up a metric... like revolving planets or repetable events.

However space also requires some repeatable measure to give it substance... two permanent objects upon which we can set up a metric, like two objects a distance apart or a solid object.

So yeah, time and space don't exist in the sense that you can't touch it or see it... but time and space do exist insofar as any creature with access to repeatable events or permanent objects can, and I posit will, come up with a metric they call time and another they call space.

3

Whatever the theories may be, they need to take the MBR into consideration. The "echo" is there for a reason. ..........?

The CMBR was predicted by the Big Bang theory and observed about 20 years after.

3

I subscribe to the Multiverse Theory

3

A great being sneezed

fantastic.....descendants of boogers...smile002.gif

or farted... haha

@blueskies not enough matter to much gas lol

@Simon1 i guess that depends on the fart? hahahaha ewww smile008.gif

@blueskies shart??? Lol yup I just went there

@Simon1 bahahahahaha... too funny

3

No explaination needed. We are here, just accept it !

I do like to read about this stuff from time to time, but basically I agree with you.

"Needed"?....no. WANTED?.....damn straight. We are, by nature, creatures of curiosity.

I think it's perfectly ok to look for answers about how things got started in the universe. Some of us find it interesting. Theories have evidence and mathematical models to support them. I do think making shit up just to have an explanation without anything to back up the claims is not acceptable. That's how you end up with more churches than schools.

@mek7730
I have no argument with that, but I personally do not need anymore answers.

2

The thing that bothers me is, what's done with knowledge gained from the past? I agree it is fascinating, but in the end, what do we do with the information? I hope we don't try to create any other worlds or universes because we have already littered up this one.

2

I'll stick with the inflationary model of the Big Bang as long as the evidence continues to support it over anything else. The rest are pretty much speculation and, as much as I love speculation, that's where they'll remain until further evidence suggests otherwise. Emergence is interesting and I look for more along this line to explain anti-entropic development, but it's not about cosmological origin. String theory remains that and evidence to support it is a major issue. It's also not an origin theory. Simulation is still SF. Here's a recent article that provides a brief history of our understanding of cosmological origin:://www.space.com/16042-cosmology.html I am particularly interested in dark matter/energy which apparently make up about 95% of the total mass and energy (in other words, everything) in our universe, according to current evidence--and we can't understand determine what it really is. Another way of looking at it is to took around the room you are in and realize that 95% of what's there right now is totally "invisible" to you--and you're full of it. (Some will probably say I am that, too.)

2

I’m not sure the Big Bang theory is much of an explanation myself.

2

I'm something of a fan of version of the anthropic principle based upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Niels Bohr, conception that physical existence is reliant on measurement and observation, therefore physical existence and consciousness are reliant on each other.
That which is observed requires an observer in order to be observed and therefore exist, the observer requires an observer in order to exist and observe.

Therefore self awareness of being is the root of everything,

Awareness is observation
Observation is measurement
Measurement brings about existence (including time and space)
Existence becomes aware
The circle is complete.

The most efficient way to achieve this is Sentient Life.

Well said! I lean toward thinking that conscious awareness is primary in reality.

2

I haven't bothered with this much the past few years, but I do recall another concept of branes colliding over and over again, and our Universe is a result of that.

Also: [space.com] and [futurism.com]

2

I find the simulation theory to be most likely.

Personally, I think it is extremely unlikely.

The problem with simulation shows up in irrational numberd such as pi, the natural log and the square root of minus 1. Since they never repeat and never end there is a problem here with the computational power required to keep that part of the simulation going

Edited

its only a problem for us within the simulation. I have read somewhere that the smallest scale of movement is akin to pixel by pixel movement.

1

I like the simulation theory. Of course, being a software engineer helps. After all, reality is just the interface of the senses. But I think it's meaningless to ask what it is interfacing with.

1

I got my own theory i can share but its nothing more than my thoughts. i think its possible that just because everything is flying away from everything doesnt in fact denote a singularity. it is possible that somewhere out there is a place that new matter is constantly formed and as process occurs things are sent hurling through space. we are very limited in our view of things if u just look at the truth of all w really can prove 100% without question. im probable 100% wrong but its just something i been toying with for a while and i might develop it more as new things are learned. i just can't see all the matter of the universe being all packed in to one singularity but im not a physicist or astronomer, just a hobbiest that ponders these things. i know as a kid i had my own version of the goldilocks theory that wasnt exact but still was correct somewhat and this was long before i heard of the actual theory. i explained it as heat from a star meets cold from space and at a certain point and u can have the creation of the ozone in some way hot and cold make steam and such. therefore making life only possible at certain spots around stars. felt good to finally see it actually in a real science journal even tho i had some things wrong.

Not that I went to school on this, but my understanding is that the part of the Big Bang theory that deals with the idea of all the matter occupying a small space made some predictions. The prediction was that there should be a constant background radiation. That was of course found, so that is one piece of evidence.

Edited

@indirect76 like i said, im prob 100% wrong but i still like to ponder on it all. i will always say the actual scientist have more to offer to prove the Big Bang.

Edited
Write Comment
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Agnostic.com is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others happy without religion!