Please, answer that!
And this one: is not correct to think that the several "universes" that the scientists postuate today is, as a whole, a univese only? A universe made of universes is a univese... not different universes...
2006-10-16 04:31:27 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Realistically speaking, we have no evidence to use to approach this problem. On the theoretical side, there are several lines of speculation. These break down into three main camps:
1) Since time is part of the universe, it began at the big bang. There is no 'before the big bang' any more than there is a 'north of the north pole'. This line is supported by general relativity, where time is part of the geometry of the universe.
2) There was 'another universe' that underwent a 'Big Crunch'. This seems to be supported by some theories of quantum gravity (quantum loop gravity, in particular).
3) There are multiple 'universes', or branes, or some other types of things that can collide and produce things like the big bang. This line is promoted by those doing string theory or M-theory.
At this point, 2) and 3) are *purely* speculation because the theories they are based on have no other predictions that have been verified. Answer 1) is based on general relativity, which has passed all of the tests we have been able to do with it. The problem is that general relativity doesn't mesh well with quantum theory, which we suspect would be relevant for the very early universe. My personal best guess is 2), but let's see how the different quantum gravity theories play out. Failing that, I would go for 1).
2006-10-16 05:44:20 · answer #1 · answered by mathematician 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Universe
2006-10-16 11:39:00 · answer #2 · answered by Lil' Gay Monster 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nothing existed before the Big Bang - that's the whole point.
Universe or universes is a matter of semantics - there is a universal universe of universes
2006-10-16 11:33:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are asking a question who's answer lies beyond the scope of normal rational processes. According to scientific thinking the laws of nature do not exist at the point of the universe's origin. There is no matter, no time, nothing.. Then to go beyond this point sets one upon sheer speculation where esoteric universes operating under ever more imaginative settings.
2006-10-16 11:48:25 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Before the Big Bang the universe was still the universe, but a little different. The universe is was and will always be. Existence is the main trait of the universe. It was never created and can never be destroyed, it simply "is".
2006-10-16 11:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by Perry G 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is no such thing as "before the big bang".
Since the time itself was created by the big bang, there could not be any "before".
What is below the center of Earth? What is to the north from the North pole?
2006-10-16 11:38:08 · answer #6 · answered by n0body 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The common theory, now is that the big bang is the result of other dimensions or as you put it other Universes colliding together. Take a look into string thery to help you first under stand the cocept of multi-universes. Since then I believe string theory has evolved.
2006-10-16 11:35:16 · answer #7 · answered by nor2006 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nothingness. Time, space and matter existed in an infinitely-small container comprised of themselves and gravity. Since time was not 'created' yet, there is no such thing as 'before' the big bang.
2006-10-16 11:33:21 · answer #8 · answered by DoNNy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Before the big bang, there was just a mass of elements and atoms. My theory is that too much of the wrong substances colided and sent everything hurling away in a bang.
2006-10-16 11:41:11 · answer #9 · answered by xChicken 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Our universe is located on the ring finger of a giant..
2006-10-18 02:27:41 · answer #10 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋