30 7

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 šŸ™‚

mek7730 7 June 13

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


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 [] via @SPACEdotcom


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.

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.

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


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

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

@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.

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.


Pure bs, its turtles all the way down

Sea turtles or freshwater?


Ever read the bible?

Yes, but what does that have to do with how the Universe was formed?

Never read it, but I think I know how it ends

The bible's creation story only replaces a natural creation with a god creation which answers nothing and only asks the same question, i.e. where did god come from and an endless regression.

@Bobby9 the question was.... ARE THERE ANY OTHER THEORIES? So that is another theory sherlock, master of deduction.

@Bobby9, @TheoryNumber3 always thought it was open ended. Like a stupid first person video game.

@Bobby9, @TheoryNumber3, @Mortal I read worse. At least the bible one is simple. Six days.... bam! The ones with the dripping butthole or the exploding asshole come to mind. And the turtles and the serpents and the this not real and the aliens, etc, etc, etc.

@Bobby9, @TheoryNumber3, @Mortal, @jlynn37 You may had to define "natural creation". And of course the definition will not make me give a fuck during the rest of my term in this plane so....

@TheoryNumber3 never cared much myself but question was about other theories available.

@GipsyOfNewSpain Your opinion is noted as are the rest of ours. Thanks for your input.

@Mortal what part of mortal you can't identify with? Rant is finished. I simply sugested a different explanation of the universe as it was asked about. Answer to my question was simply yes or no, agree or not agree, liked or not liked. Act like a christian or not act like a christian, on or off, + or -. "Rant" extended for your benefit.

@GipsyOfNewSpain No, bibles are not theories, they are philosophical. Try knowing your subject before becoming snide.

@Bobby9 So now you call yourself an Expert on the Origin of the Universe!!! Which one are You? The Fart of the Big Asshole? The Shit of the Great Dump?

@GipsyOfNewSpain Not said or inferred. Try reading.


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.


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.


I find the simulation theory to be most likely.

Nardi Level 7 June 13, 2018

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

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.


It is fun to speculate about such things. I think most mainstream theorists actually hold something of a "multiverse" view these days. I don't think that a theory that "the universe started from different smaller explosions" works very well as it doesn't explain two very significant and curious observations.

The flatness and horizon problems.


A great being sneezed

Simon1 Level 7 June 13, 2018

or farted... haha

@blueskies not enough matter to much gas lol

@Simon1 i guess that depends on the fart? hahahaha ewww šŸ˜®

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

@Simon1 bahahahahaha... too funny


Big bang theory makes good sense to me.
For fire is the beginning source of all life and matter. The iron in our blood can be found throughout the galaxy and our bodies is balance heat and particles of metal energy . About 99ā„… of earth mass can melt metals. The earth is cooler than the sun and the sun is cooler than the stars. We are stardust children of the stars.


I subscribe to the Multiverse Theory


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




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.

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.


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.


Several of the alternatives you listed could be part of the big bang model, just that the scale would be even far greater than what we know. The multiverse, if it exist, could be multiple big bangs same as the one theorized. The question in mind mind would be if they exist in the same physical realm (i.e. if we could literally travel beyond the bounds of our universe and get to another) or not (physically impossible as the universes exist in different "realms" ). String theory is part of the big bang theory. Simulation is a wash because there would have to be a universe within which some entity had the means to create this simulation, albeit it may be a far different universe than what we know. The notion of scale is abstract; our universe is as big as it is, and any other existing universes or other realms would merely add to that, unless, as suggested by quantum physics, they occupy all the same realm.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to get the attention of the woman next door.

godef Level 7 June 13, 2018

All are theories and can never be proven with 100 percent certainty, unless someday we create a universe based on one of those theories in a lab.

You have to start somewhere though. We were going to be curious about space and how it works eventually. I think it says something about humanity that we've been able to send people into space without fully understanding it.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever is % certain. There is no actual need for % certainty. In general the preponderance of evidence leans heavily one way or the other and that's good enough for our purposes. Rejecting the best available explanations when the evidence for them is excellent never ends well.

The BB theory fits well with most aspects of observed reality and where the abstraction leaks there are reasonable hypotheticals to explain it. The BB theory is subject to refinement and isn't as settled as, say, the Theory of Evolution, but it is the accepted cosmological model and is very unlikely to be totally discarded due to future discoveries.

One common misconception about the BB is that it explains the origin of the universe. It doesn't; it assumes the existence of matter and energy as a starting point (though not time as we know it). It really just describes what we can observe about the past universe back to our event horizon and the limits of our mathematical models -- and to the "beginning" of time. It inherently can say nothing about what, if anything, lies beyond those boundaries. And it does not require a First Mover or other "cause" because those concepts have no meaning "before" time.


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.

Deb57 Level 8 June 13, 2018



Iā€™m not sure the Big Bang theory is much of an explanation myself.


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.


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


Some version of the big bang probably happened, but I think there is probably much more to it that we don't and may never know the details of.

MsAl Level 7 June 13, 2018

There is M Theory/Brane Theory, which is a product of string theory. I like the neatness of it.

There really is no alternative to BB theory at this point. All of the evidence points to it.


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::// 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.)

wdwyer Level 5 June 13, 2018

There was no beginning - Infinite space has always been here.

gater Level 7 June 13, 2018
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:105873
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.