- This topic is empty.
September 12, 2007 at 5:52 am #138755SaiParticipant
I have for a long time been developing my own ideas concerning the Big Bang theory. For those who are not familiar the Big Bang theory is that the universe began win a huge explosion from a singular point and from that which everything began. My own theory builds of this theory and accepts the Big Bang theory as true. My theory is that after a long time (by our standards) there begins to be so many black wholes that they begin to eat every thing and merging. Eventually because the gravity of these black wholes attracts each other and all matter goes back to a singular point. Then it explodes again and it continues so on and so on. So in a way if my theory is true the universe is if you think about it the universe is “breathing”. This also proves that you can explain religion with science. Disscuss. (if I should have put this in science and tech then apolagize in advance. I was just concerned as there is some cross over)September 12, 2007 at 8:20 am #146219Kol DrakeModerator
Your idea is consistant with one of the many ‘origin of everything’ hypothesis — the oscillating universe. The oscillatory universe theory is a hypothesis credited to Richard Tolman who saw it as a possible outcome of the Big Bang.
One implication of the Big Bang hypothesis is that the universe may grow cold and dark and die an ultimate heat death. This will happen if the universe expands forever. Although this scenario will destroy all life and the ability of the universe to do work, the universe itself would survive for an infinite period of time. This would be the outcome if the expansion of the universe were what scientists call flat or open.
Alternatively, in a closed universe the expansion will eventually stop. In this scenario the universe will begin to contract once expansion ends. Although contraction would be very slow at first the contraction rate would accelerate and grow hotter and brighter until it ends in the Big Crunch, in which it implodes into a singularity and gets crushed out of existence.
Some scientists speculate that the Big Crunch would not signal the end. They believe that perhaps another Big Bang would follow the Big Crunch, giving rise to a new universe of possibilities. This idea that Big Bangs follow Big Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end.
This theory was popular in the 1960’s and 70’s, but has currently fallen out of favor. One reason is that all recent data shows that the universe is not closed and consequently will expand forever. Another reason is that this theory ignores the second law of thermodynamics, which requires usable energy to continually decrease and for the universe to become more random and disorganized. A third reason is that it really doesn’t provide for an explanation of the initial creation; rather, it only pushes it back further in time.
Oscillating with a Dark Twist
It’s a theory still held dear to many… January 2007, a professor and his grad student from University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill put out a paper which again worked with the oscillating universe idea — this time taking into account dark matter and dark energy. Even though it tended to address some of the ‘issues’ of the Big Bang hypothesis — this new hypothesis had to establish many more ‘loopholes’ and specific conditions to get it to ‘work right’. So.. we still wait for a definitive explaination of ‘how it all happened’.
And, until someone ‘proves’ otherwise, your idea may hold as much merit as any one of the other dozen or so ways in which science has tried to ‘explain it all’.September 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm #146237JaxKeymaster
The Universe is constantly created. It is consciousness, manifest. Consciousness is eternally expanding, therefore the Universe is constantly expanding. I don’t believe it will collapse, because it’s not possible to ever stop creating. Even if all of the physical universe disappeared, the non-physical would remain. That includes you, in non-physical form.
I haven’t ever had much intuition about the cause of the big bang. I still don’t know what the first trigger was. Where did the energy come from to begin with? But, for a period of time our Universe was non-physical. Then it slowly coalesced over billions of years. I forget the most recent number but I think we’re approaching 20 billion years as the estimate of the universe, yet our earth is under 5 billion years old. That’s a lot of time. What I’m thinking is that, the Universe was predominantly non-physical. Then, as the experiences in the non-physical became less unique for lack of a better word, they needed physical experiences. For instance, beings that incarnate here do so to learn certain lessons. Beings that incarnate elsewhere focus on different experiences. But all of these experience creates more, and thus adds to the Universe.
Now is there a way to prove this scientifically? lol of course not. But I do believe it. I have yet to hear a good theory as to where the energy came from for the universe. But at least science can explain the trigger quantum mechanically, and I feel perfectly fine with that. It’s a heck of a lot better than trying to answer who created god if god created everything else. That idea never sat right with me, even as a kid.
The way I look at it, it doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do in our lifetime. What will we learn? Will we live a life of joy or suffering? And since the nature of the Universe doesn’t affect my quality of life, I don’t spend much time thinking about it. Just another sign that I needed to take a break from physics.October 11, 2007 at 5:24 am #146566SpenserfParticipant
*smile* I have the feeling that the universe is a wee bit bigger than our feeble consciousnessFebruary 11, 2008 at 1:08 am #148187ChavicParticipant
Why are our consciousnesses feeble? Why do we limit ourselves like this?
Look at everything we have achieved in the flash of time that is human existence. Think of everything we can achieve. In no way does that seem feeble to me…February 11, 2008 at 1:12 am #148188ChavicParticipant
The thing that I don’t understand about the big bang theory (open, closed, or oscillating) is what came before it. At this point every one always throws causality in my face. But why is it illogical to think that something came before the first big bang singularity?February 11, 2008 at 1:32 am #148190JaxKeymaster
Admitting that we aren’t capable of comprehending everything does not mean we are limiting ourselves artificially. But, if you are continually seeking something and running into a brick wall of understanding, and then getting frustrated, it’s important to realize that there are limits. Accepting these limits allows the eternal quest for knowledge to continue without the suffering that frustration brings. It’s a mindset that can be very freeing, though there are people who use it as an excuse to not search. I guess it’s all in how you look at it. For me it’s freeing. Besides, I believe the quest for understanding should be a joyous process, and when it becomes something less than that it’s time to evaluate your expectations.
As for the big bang, who knows? It’s possible there was nothing except potential, as quantum mechanics teaches us. Or perhaps there was something. But, at this point there is no conceivable way to find out as there is no evidence remaining. I know I wasn’t taught that it’s illogical to think there was something before the big bang. It’s one of the relatively common theories, actually, that the universe goes through these cycles of expansion, contraction, and then expansion again (oscillating). This theory does not say there was nothing before the big bang, just that there are multiple big bangs. Do we have evidence for this? Time will tell. I don’t even have a spiritual inclination on this really, because I don’t know. And we’re only just beginning to probe the universe in a way that will hopefully provide some evidence to narrow down the possible explanations for the universe.
My hunch is that, rather than worrying about whether people understand your question or have an answer, you should simply enjoy your own process of discovery. If someone discounts a question such as this by saying that it’s illogical, I would seriously consider that they don’t have a clue and are trying to shut down a very valid question. Remember, no one knows the answer to that question. Only a few have a true understanding of those first moments after the big bang, and even they don’t know what comes before that. So ask your questions. But ask them only for yourself, without concern over other people’s opinion. It’s the only way you can truly come to your own answers.February 21, 2008 at 2:25 am #148347ChavicParticipant
Jax I’m going to have to partially agree and disagree with you.
I do believe that there are current limits to our understanding. But I believe that these limits are not static and change as we change through learning. What we are unable to know now, we may learn later.
People used to believe that we cannot travel faster than the speed of sound, but that is just one of many limits we have surpassed.February 21, 2008 at 2:31 am #148348JaxKeymaster
The location of the boundary will change, of course. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But we are limited in our understanding of some areas in order to experience life in new ways in human form. I’m just saying there is a limit while in physical form due to our brain structure. Yes, there are people who have pushed comprehension, but there are also those who, after doing so, went insane because it was more than the brain could handle. But, allowing our understanding to expand naturally can bring us places we can’t even imagine yet. I’m all for expanding understanding and not defining limits. That doesn’t mean there aren’t limits, but if we accept that we don’t know where they are we can see just how far we can take life. That might not have been as clear as I want to be, but I’ll clarify another time.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login here