From what I have seen from theoretical physics, there was nothing before the universal Big Bang. I believe in the big bang, but I think that there h ave been an infinite number of other "universes" making this whole chain of "universes" actually an ever regenerating single Universe.
INFORMED people, is this reasonable?
2006-10-18
07:49:38
·
9 answers
·
asked by
recentlyconfirmedagnosticofminds
1
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Astronomy & Space
Ok, it seems as if all of you think that I believe in a theory that requires the universe to come to a big crunch to start a big bang again. Well, and from your answers, it seems as if you haven't heard of yet another way a big bang can come to be. I'll tell you, if you ever happen to read this question.
I know that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and I have a feeling that our previous chain of universes, were both created from an overstretched period, and also from a crunching period. I say period and not universe, because if I am to believe that there was a chain of big bangs, then the universe is not a single time period from bang to stretchy, or bang to crunch, but all of this infinitly combined. So by period I mean time between bangs.
It is theorized, that when the universe stretches itself 2 much, the 11 or 12 or so dimensions start 2 fluctuate, and this fluctuation can become so pronounced, that they either bump in2 some other dimension, or universe.
2006-10-19
03:07:28 ·
update #1
and this bump, causes another big bang. Now wether the nature of a created from a stretchy period differs from a period of crunchy, I don't have any theories for, nor have I read of anybody who has published such theories.
I wanted to sound like I knew nothing, so that I can fish in the most various answers, so that I can see what the majority of informed to semi informed intelectuals out there think.
2006-10-19
03:11:42 ·
update #2
I do believe in the big bang, and yes there was a big bang, which created the planets and the galaxies, but I will let no one fool me by telling me that the universe had a beginning it could not have had a beginning, because it does not have an end, which means that space was always there, that is a concept too complicated for our brain to absorb, because we can only imagine things starting and finishing, but the universe does not follow the law of our imagination, it is much bigger than that, science can speculate all they want about a finite or infinite universe, but they will never find an answer about the beginning, that is just where our imagination stops. And yes the big bang did generate from another universes, it could not just come out of nowhere, it evolved from something that was always there.
2006-10-18 09:54:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Halal Pig Ok in Islam 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Yes, an oscillatory universe is a theory that is recognized to have scholarly merit. The idea is that the universe has sufficient mass that gravity will eventually draw the expanding universe into a contraction phase, and it will ultimately collapse back into a singularity like the one that spawned the Big Bang, and this process would be called the Big Crunch. A new Big Bang would issue from the singularity, and in theory this could have happened infinitely many times already. This model of the universe was first proposed by physicist Richard Tolman 1934, but modern analysis of entropy in systems has led to it falling from the favor with which it was originally received.
2006-10-18 07:53:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by DavidK93 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fairly recently our known universe began to slow down as if it was going to stop and then begin contracting into the Big Crunch as they had theorized. The it began expanding again and actually pick up speed. This has caused most scientists to reconsider this theory and are now caling the universe's movement inflation. It would also tend to cause disagreement with your idea that we exist as a chain of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.
It is possible that our universe was formed by the collapse of a very giganitic star from a universe where the stars are bigger than any we know of and the separation is 100s of billions of light years. If that universe is 75 billion light years old, we would not know because the light has not reached us yet from other stars in there universe where everything is much bigger.
2006-10-18 11:21:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Until the discovery of and accelerated universe, that was a leading theory. Now though the fact that "dark matter" seems to be overtaking gravity. So unless gravity can win in the end or another cosmic force is at work( I am sure there are many we don't know about) then the imploding universe is not true.
2006-10-18 08:23:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
incorrect. whilst Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose prolonged the equations for primary relativity to contain area and time, the outcomes confirmed that ingredient has a commencing up. on the 2d of introduction, the huge Bang. in actuality, in case you learn college web content, you will discover that many professors make considered one of those declare, that the universe had a commencing up and that this commencing up marked the commencing up of time. Such assertions help the Bible's declare that ingredient began on the introduction of the universe. on the different hand, time is finite. Assuming God does exist, God himself dwells outdoors of the measurement He created. He dwells interior eternity and is not concern to time. undergo in innovations, not that 'each little thing' has a writer, or reason, yet that each little thing 'that starts off to exist' has a reason. If God is eternal, as many theist believe, then he had no commencing up and subsequently neither a writer nor a reason. This sounds suspiciously like making a particular exception for God. although, atheist themselves was once very soft in protecting that the universe is eternal and uncaused. the priority is they can now not carry that place because of the fact of present day information that the universe began with the huge Bang. Do they are able to't legitimately merchandise as quickly as I make the comparable declare approximately God, he's eternal and he's uncaused.
2016-11-23 17:55:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is evidant from the scientific findings that there was a big bang, and it was more or less like, every thing out of nothing..this nothing is described a zero volume energy ball. so was there a unverse before that, and did that universe collaps into this zero volume energy ball? if it might be so, then wht evidance do we have? i cant give a direct answer to this..it might be or might not be possible.. may be it will be accurately answerd after a few generations
2006-10-18 08:25:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, this universe could have sprung from the white hole of another universe. It's doubtful that our universe is in a cycle of expand and contract though.
But the question remains... where did the first one come from? Does it even make sense to ask that? I wish I knew.
2006-10-18 08:08:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
why not? is the best answer anyone can give
2006-10-18 08:51:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by AntoineBachmann 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-18 07:56:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by jeff g 4
·
0⤊
0⤋