"And eventually the universe will retract back into its original state" is contentious, not al all agreed upon by astronomers and theoretical physicists.
Mass-energy is a consequence of the Big Bang. Time is a consequence of the Big Bang. There is no "before" and there there is no antecedent material implicit or explained in Big Bang cosmology.
2007-01-03 05:14:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jerry P 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Making the BBT a given for the moment, the issue of whether or not it was one constant expansion or will re-collapse had to do with the rate of expansion and the total mass of the universe.
The expansion could be figured, but the total known mass was far less than would account for a re-collapse due to gravitational force. Unless, there was some, heretofore unaccounted matter, scientists called "dark matter" that was there to make up the mass, but we just couldn't see or detect it. Well, it was looked for, but until recently, to no avail. So the oscillating theory had to be shelved. However, now scientists have found new particles in the universe that could account for a large portion of the dark matter, and the issue of an oscillating universe is back in the spotlight again.
As for where any of the original energy or matter came from, feel free to believe whatever satisfies you the most.
2007-01-03 12:06:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lorenzo Steed 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the universe were closed and the cycle of expanding, contracting and sprouting once again another big bang and formation of a new universe, we would never know it. Theoretically it's possible it's occurred countless times. But the moment our universe ends, or rather a new universe forms, all knowledge and science is contained within the new universe and there's no way to know "what came before" because all remnants of it are lost.
Actually it doesn't even make sense to ask the question "what came before" because before our universe existed is before time existed and before time existed everything for us is undefined or null.
The Big Bang theory is that the universe began with a singularity, a point of infinite mass and gravity that simply exploded into existence from nothing, or from another dimension if you like.
2007-01-03 12:25:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Larry H 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
when people ask "how did God come into existence?", they obviously have a huge misconception and ignorane of the True God of the Bible, the Creator. Space, matter, and time are 3 things that work together, and can only come together with an outside "force", and or, "being" (God). Space is an uncalculable area where all material exists. well, that material is matter, so without space being made first, matter can't exist, and without matter, space wouldnt be space because space only exists where matter is found. and time is when that matter enters space, and so on and so forth. only something not bound by these 3 things can make these 3 things... God. (Gen. 1:1), "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)." The Big Bang Theory speaks of a small period sized atom starting from nowhere and making the 'bang'. well, who cares about where the atom came from. what made the space?
2007-01-05 20:59:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Daniel H 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it has been hypothesized that the universe will retract, but there is no direct evidence of this, only inference from watching other types of explosions. Also don't forget that if one were to go to the edge of the universe and look out one would see in the distance other independent universes that share a foundation with our universe as they are on the same universal space-time bubble. These are not parallel universes but separate ones. As to where this material came from, it just is, and it's only energy anyway.
2007-01-03 11:59:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by thanatos_azrael 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
The Big Bang is not cyclical. The universe at present is not only expanding, it is accellerating. As to where all of this matter and energy came from, it literally came from nothing and nowhere. A single quantum fluctuation grew out of all proportion, creating a 'hiccup' in the 'fabric' of hyperspace. That disturbance then amplified through a feedback process that we do not at present understand. The result? Light and energy expanded out almost instantaneously to a ball the size of our solar system. It then began condensing into the first protomatter, bits of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Eventually, hydrogen was formed, and the universe as we understand it began.
2007-01-03 11:56:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The logical problem with the big bang theory is that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? What is on the outer edge? The most logical answer is that God made the universe.
2007-01-03 13:36:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Greg D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Interesting Question. Before my answer, i would like to say that I respect both science and spirituality. I believe in mutiple expansions and retractions...because when we say big bang, we might ask what really banged. The same thing goes in theological reasoning too that if we say "god created the universe", then the obvious question might be how did god come into exsistence. If the answer for that is god exsisted forever, why not apply the samething to universe and say universe exsisted forever but went through different cycles of expansions and retractions.
Even with multiple expansion and retractions or "big bangs again and again" if you will, the basic question still lingers....where did the original matter come from. When we talk about multiple expansions and retractions, that means we are talking about new universe(with new space & time) starting again and again. So the only thing we can do is to speculate what could be there before but its hard even to take a guess because the reality we are in(or think we are in) is the result of new expansion(or big bang or creation or whatever we can call).
The basic question, (i think) boils down to the question on energy. Whether its scientific or religious, we are talking about energy. I might not believe in a "man look-alike" god with white beard sitting in clouds but i do believe in energy or divine energy which is all over us, no matter what name we use to call that energy (god, soul, energy, light, singulaity, etc). I might call my friend by his name, his dad would call him kid, his wife would call him honey. There are different names given to the same person by different people based on their reality. But its all the same. Coming back to the question...I think energy is required for the things that we see around to come into exsistence. Energy is necessary to sustain the universe too. It is proved from laws of themodynamics that "ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED" but can be transfered to different states. So whether we are talking about God(energy) or singularity in science (energy), we are talking about properties of energy which puzzle us to this day.
Philosophically we might further this question by saying, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, why is this law the way it is. What causes this law to uphold itself. This is how the reasoning and questions goes on and on. There is always something to be discovered/known which we don't have a clue of. Accepting a theory on infinity might be beyound our comprehension but like said before....we have to have an open mind to question, reason, and come up with intelligent theories to describe the universe and never stop questioning.
Without curiosity and questioning, life on earth will come to stall.
So coming up with different questions and answers will lead us to greater goal.
2007-01-03 11:44:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Trivi 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Current info says universe is contiuing to expand
and its accelerating
not slowing down.
So much for cycle theory. Sorry.
The source for original material is a philosophical question so far.
All evidence destroyed in creation event.
2007-01-03 11:47:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by T K 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
No-the universe will continue to expand not contract,as far a science knows at this time-Who knows what we will uncover in the next decade or so?
2007-01-03 11:53:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Art 4
·
1⤊
0⤋