Thanks for your comment. It's an assumption I'm not prepared to make either.

I created the I don't know category for those who don't know if the universe has a beginning. Thanks for your comment.

Thanks for your comment. How did the big bounce come into existence?

@kensmile4u It is hard for all of us humans to think in that way, but why does the universe have to have a beginning?

@wordywalt Evidence points to time traveling in one direction in this universe. There are hypotheses indicating the arrow of time should change to some unknown state under extreme conditions like black holes and singularities but there is no evidence of this. Even your cycles indicate a sequence of expansion and contraction which requires a function of time. Having said that there is not enough evidence yet to say you are wrong about anything.

@kensmile4u The big bang is simply end end of a cycle of contraction and the beginning of a cycle of expansion.

@wordywalt You could be right. I have seen this called the big bounce.

Thanks for your comment. I agree we will not know the answer in our lifetimes.

Thanks for your comment. Your theory could explain Universal expansion.

@kensmile4u right? I'm no physicist...but it sounds like a great explanation to me

@Ringo6 You know that I've probably solved a problem with this musing that will take science another 50 years to confirm...and then someone will say...didn't a chef think of this back in the early part of the century? LOL

Thanks for your comment. I don't know either.

Thanks for your comments. I never asked if the universe had super natural origins. It is possible that a life form far superior to ours intentionally created the universe we know of. When you are without evidence you can't rule anything out.

@kensmile4u there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang that is why it is a working theory and not a hypothesis. Where is the evidence of something creating it?

[florida.pbslearningmedia.org]

@kensmile4u [schoolsobservatory.org]

@Donto101 Please see the link to the Big Bang Theory. I have extracted sentence 4 from paragraph 1. It clearly states that "Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time". So there is no evidence to support a natural cause or an intentional cause. That's where I say I don't know.

There is no difference between a working theory, a leading theory, or a hypothesis. They are all the same step in the scientific method. It is just semantics.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@kensmile4u
A Hypothesis is an uncertain explanation regarding a phenomenon or event. It is widely used as a base for conducting tests and the results of the tests determine the acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. A tentative statement takes a form like - “If X happens then Y must happen”. Hypothesis can be tested by various methods, including the direct experimentation or using certain observation skills. It is important to mention that theories, laws and facts can start from being just a hypothesis at the initial phase.

It can always be tested by experimentation after the formulation. It is generated by gathering possible evidence. Later, the investigation is carried out to test the hypothesis. It is either accepted or assumed.

A Theory is basically a system comprising of ideas through which explanations are made. A theory is based on the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is able to survive and pass all critical tests then it is eligible to be mentioned as a theory. A theory is always supported by evidence. Therefore, it is regarded to be a well confirmed type of explanation. A theory may also be used for predicting any of the future observations. One of the famous theories is Darwin’s Revolutionary Theory. Darwin derived and used the information from various fields and subjects to establish this theory.

@Donto101 Here is a link to the scientific method. Also refer to the picture. I really don't want to quibble with you over semantics.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@kensmile4u what that is leaving off is once it is proven true it becomes theory.

@Donto101 Again with the semantics. This hypothesis about the big bang at T=0 has never been tested or observed. So using your own chart that establishes a gradient change from a hypothesis to a theory after some nebulous amount of testing also supports what i'm saying. Please see the Speculations section in my previous wikipedia link to the big bang theory. It states in sentence 1 that "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined. The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified. (Also see Planck epoch.)". So you pick whatever you want to call it. Science breaks down at T=0 so we don't know what to do with that part of the big bang hypothesis. Shortly after T=0 something happened that resulted in observable cosmic phenomena like the CMB. So at that point if you want to call it a theory per your chart I'm fine with that.

Thanks for your comment. Please realize that Hawking's Big Bang is just a hypothesis. There is currently not enough evidence to conclusively affirm the big bang. We may be several generations away from creating tools that will facilitate gathering of evidence which will enable us to know the truth of it.

@kensmile4u. Seriously?..you seriously believe it's hypothetical? ...actually it's Theoritical..as in Theory of..which is an evolving Scientific Theory..which all theories are..delightfully so, as our understanding of the evolution our Universe grows. btw theoretically you should have used Confirm instead of Affirm..but I could Hypothetically be wrong..

@Charlene I read Hawking's book a long time ago. I prefer Guth's writings on the subject because it is more detailed. Semantics are usually not constructive. The point i was making is no one knows how the universe started because there is scant evidence to support anyone's ideas. There are lots of words and numbers theorizing or hypothesizing what likely happened. But ultimately I don't know what happened at the beginning of time because no one knows. Here is a link to some of Guth's work.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you.

Thanks for your comment. Please provide evidence for either the natural or intentional creation of the universe from T=0.

@kensmile4u I have no sound bite for it all. Do a little research. It's available. From the Doppler shift in light from stars, telling us they are moving apart. To DNA that tells us, Darwin was right.

So you've never tripped or dropped anything? Interesting...

Thanks for your comment. What or who set off the bang?

Thanks for your comment. Which physical law? Entropy?

Thanks for your comment. I don't know either.

Thanks for your comment. For what purpose would we be placed in a hologram? Could we be just a novelty in the snow globe of some far superior life form?

Thanks for your comment. Several people have mention this. If that were the case then we would be in an expansion phase because everything is moving away from each other.

@kensmile4u I believe that is the case.

Thai is the standpoint in the over-arching Hindu philosophy. A universe comes into existence, expands and contracts returning to void from which it came and then repeats the cycle. No different from the seasons really. In a segment in a show by Brian Cox recently he intimated that this is similar to some cosmological thinking at present. The void is eternal to use a term.

Thanks for your comment. The laws of physics work well until you get into the confluence of extremes such as extreme gravity, extreme temperatures, and extreme densities of matter. These confluences or singularities are thought to exist in black holes and at the big bang. Newton's first law states that "every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". So in the case of the big bang what external force caused the change of state from "at rest" to an explosion that resulted in our universe? Or since I earlier stated Newton's laws may not apply at such extremes, could some thing unrelated to our physical laws occur?

@kensmile4u I guess when our known laws break down another set take over I.e. Newtonian mechanics to quantum. Who knows what awaits us at the end of the breadcrumb trial. I know I don't!

Thanks for your comment. I'm always glad to see a fellow optimist.

@kensmile4u that I can be (optimist), no doubt. On top of that, what I've stated is a simple and fundamental truth which I do totally believe. To accept that we do not know is not enough to give up on trying.

@IamNobody indeed. The fact that we don't know in inquisitive people is the impetus to scale the next height. Without pondering 'what is over there' we would not be communicating as we are now.

Thanks for your comment. That's what most cosmologists believe.

Thanks for your comment. I don't know the origin.

@kensmile4u don't worry about it...I understand (to the best of human ability right now) how the universe came to be...I can't bake a cake to save my life...were even.

@MissaDixon No worries. I made a living using stats. We can certainly rank two of the options in terms of probability. I asked what you believe to eliminate the need for a correct answer.

Hell no it's all Trumped up right now. Can you please fix it?

@kensmile4u will have a go need to sharpen my spanner!

@jacpod hahahaha

Thanks for your comprehensive comment. Current inflation theory proposes there could have been enough energy just after the big bang to create multiple fractal universes. We just need to build the tools to either duplicate the event or travel backwards in time so we can witness the event. Sounds easy right?

@kensmile4u We already have. Take a look at this documentary lol

@Piece2YourPuzzle hahahaha why didn't i think to look on ebay?

Thanks for your comment. I never meant to imply super natural when I used the word intentional. What if a far superior life form intentionally created the big bang? or a multiverse? or maybe we are just a novelty snow globe sitting in their curio cabinet along with many other universes!

@kensmile4u it is entirely possible, however I was only answering for this universe's origins, no more no less... lol before or beyond is probably unknowable from inside the system.

Thanks for your comment. I voted i don't know also.

Thanks for your comment. Interesting thought!