• Did time started with big bang?


  • @n00ne it's a possibility that time started at the big bang since it was the BEGINNING of TIMEspace but even if there was something before the beginning if THIS chunk of timespace, it's most likely the multiverse


  • @AlwaysStranger but time is probably never going to end. So, time might not have started at all, which probably means that there was no big bang.


  • @n00ne there isn't a lot of data for the things that happened before the big bang. There is only hypothesis that tries to explain it. For example, the multiverse theory tries it explain it by saying that the big bang is nothing but a random bubble popping up in a sea of universes, while the big crunch theory tries to explain it by saying that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Hence, like the big bang, they speculate that there might be a point where all the matters in the universe contract into a single point, called big crunch which would then proceed to expand, creating another big bang.


  • @n00ne said in The big bang!:

    @AlwaysStranger but time is probably never going to end. So, time might not have started at all, which probably means that there was no big bang.

    What? Of course there was a big bang. I don't understand your logic


  • @sir-devil said in The big bang!:

    @n00ne there isn't a lot of data for the things that happened before the big bang.

    There is none

    There is only hypothesis that tries to explain it. For example, the multiverse theory tries it explain it by saying that the big bang is nothing but a random bubble popping up in a sea of universes

    The multivarse theory is much more than just a hypothesis. It's a complex child from the marriage of astrophysics research and quantum physics and how that would explain the universe

    while the big crunch theory tries to explain it by saying that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Hence, like the big bang, they speculate that there might be a point where all the matters in the universe contract into a single point, called big crunch which would then proceed to expand, creating another big bang.

    There is also the big freeze and big rip theory.

    Here is a fun video of Michio Kaku explaining them:


  • @alwaysstranger said in The big bang!:

    It's a complex child from the marriage of astrophysics research and quantum physics and how that would explain the universe

    That still means that it's a hypothesis. Until someone finds a solid proof, it's a hypothesis. One could still be widely accepted and remain a hypothesis.


  • @sir-devil well. If you're definition of a hypothesis is anything that isn't 100% proven then k but there is way too many reasons to think we're in a multiverse to just call the multiverse theory a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Do you agree?


  • @alwaysstranger said in The big bang!:

    a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    0_1508606906420_Untitled1.png

    you're definition of a hypothesis

    wait, what?! You have just given the definition of a hypothesis

    So, yeah. I agree


  • @sir-devil you agree that it shouldn't be called a hypothesis? Did you write a typo


  • @alwaysstranger no, I said that showcase you mentioning, "your definition" in your reply and then proceeded to give me the actual definition of a hypothesis which is implying that the definition you gave and I had are different but in actuality, the definition you gave and I had are the same.


  • @sir-devil oh ok. So does that mean that you still think the multiverse theory should still be called a hypothesis for now?


  • @alwaysstranger I think that among the theories, it is the most probable but yeah, until a solid proof is found, it is still a hypothesis.


  • @sir-devil said in The big bang!:

    @alwaysstranger I think that among the theories, it is the most probable but yeah, until a solid proof is found, it is still a hypothesis.

    Ok