Is this a logical answer to the creation of the universe?

Question

So when people mention the Big Bang Theory, the main arguement they get is what created the explosion, how did all that matter get there, something can't be created from nothing.

What if it was always there, and the universe is in a infinite cycle of expanding and collapsing. I mean the universe IS expanding right now. So maybe stars start to die out, black holes and vacuums grow until the universe satrts to reverse, and collapse into something so small that it's sheer mass explodes creating a new universe.

Can I prove this, obviously not, but it makes sense, and nowhere in there is God.

Some of that "out of the box" thinking for all you believers.

Answer 1

Your theory would be plausible, provided there is enough mater in the universe to slow and eventually stop the universe from expanding.

However, if you look into M-theory and Super string theory, I think you will find some better explanations about the beginnings of the universe.

As far as your question about getting something from nothing we already know the big bang was an immense release of energy (can still be heard in the background radiation). Einstein’s equation E=MC2 shows us that mater and energy are interchangeable. We have already made energy out of mater so the opposite would also be true.

Answer 2

1. How was it always there
2. where does it go after it reverses into a blackhole
3. If a black hole could suck up the entire universe, why does it suddenly explode outwards after it eats up all the mass?

Let's say there is one blackhole in the universe, and it is made to suck up everything. So after it is done, it has nothing to suck up, so that nothing is the blackhole for the alternate universe.

Now think about this: while the black hole is sucking up this universe, the "intake" caused by this sucking is producing a big bang on the other side. It expands, and as it moves away from the black hole it cools, produces matter and eventually life. So the question is, will it ever get sucked up again? And if so, how did it start in the first place?

Answer 3

I'm a naturalistic atheist, and I'm in your camp, but some of the science is not supporting your suppositions:

1. The universe is not only expanding, it is excelerating. Thus the return to the big bang is unlikely, since assumedly the universe will simply continue to expand faster & faster.

2. The Theory of Relativity states that energy and matter are essentially equal, or at least convertibal from one to the other. So matter is not necessary as long as there is energy.

However, the big bang does not mean that there was not another universe in some other dimension or element of space. Space and dimensions may be infinite, and there are those that consider black holes gateways to those other dimensions for energy/matter.

Interesting stuff, no?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 4

Before the big bang, mass, energy and time were all one singularity. Matter was formed in the first micro-fraction of a second when energy and mass seperated. At first matter was simply subatomic particles, like quarks. As the universe expanded and cooled the subatomic particles formed protons and neutrons. Some seconds later hydrogen, with traces of helium and lithium, were formed from the protons and neutrons.

It is unlikely that our universe will cease to expand and then collapse upon itself. There simply is not sufficient mass in the universe to slow the rate of expansion.

Answer 5

Out of the box and into the toilet for this believer.
Who says the universe is expanding right now? Stars already die out dude and according to you the earth is a billion years old, so in billions of years the universe still has not collapsed to create a new universe.
And, it still had to start somewhere anyway!! What put it there to always be there? It doesn't make any sense, puff, puff and then GIVE dude, really. Sleep it off.

Answer 6

well, look: either way you have to believe in something just being. Whether its just a bunch of matter or a God is the question, according to you. Does it make much sense that matter just 'was' or that there was a being that just 'was?' matter, in a vacuum wouldn't do anything but sit there. but a being, has potential AND it also explains life, which random matter just can't do. So both the origins of life AND the universe are answered by there being a God, where as neither of them are answered by the "it just happened" theory. now thats some "out of the box" thinking for you.

Answer 7

Cyclical Universe Theory in physical cosmology is a Hindu idea, the oldest religion still practiced. . The Big Bang is described as the birth of the universe (Brahma), the life of the universe then follows (Vishnu), and the Big Crunch would be described as the destruction of the universe (Shiva).

Answer 8

Actually, thats not entirely true. When the big bang occured, there was a tremendous release of energy. Matter CAN be created from energy, and vice versa. This is what we see in nuclear fusion. two hydrogen atoms are "burned" to make a helium atom. they combine to form helium, but the weight of that helium is less than the weight of 2 hydrogen atoms. the missing mass was converted to energy, which is the warmth and light from the sun. The big bang was an explosion of space and energy. that energy went backwards to make matter.

Answer 9

Closed system or open system? If space is a vacuum what will slow down the expansion? Your theory is an old one: Like saying that god is now exhaling and that someday he will inhale and the universe will end and then he will breath out again and it will all begin anew. I believe it is much more complex than that.

Answer 10

In all honesty, I have no idea how the world was created (obviously I wouldn't since no one else really does either). I think your idea is logical though. Religious people though could combine their beliefs with that train of thought and say that the continued cycle is a work of God...there is no way to know for sure.