CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:39
Arguments:34
Total Votes:39
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What caused the beginning of the universe? (34)

Debate Creator

TheDude(167) pic



What caused the beginning of the universe?

There are millions of theories as to what caused the beginning of the universe. Feel free to post your theory here. Id like to hear all those great and/or crazy theories out there.

Add New Argument
4 points

I might as well say it: the big bang.

Now, to turn this into a profound theory that will, like a grenade in the face, blow your mind.

What happened before the big bang?

The big bang started with all of the universe condensed into a point- which I would like to point out is a black hole. The known observable universe has a mass of 3*10^55 grams. This amount of mass in a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters would be a black hole.

a point is most definitely less than a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters

Now, a black hole is an object with such immense gravitational attraction that not even light can escape. However, the radius of the universe today is 4.4e26 meters- we are not in a black hole.

Since an object traveling at the speed of light would be unable to escape a black hole, yet the expanding universe did in fact escape, I can assume that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light.

According to Einsteins theory of relativity, time decreases as speed increases, halting at the speed of light. If the universe were expanding faster than the speed of light, it would have been traveling backwards in time.

up until very recently (on a cosmic scale), when the universe reached a radius past 4.456e25 meters, the universe was in fact getting younger as it expanded past the event horizon of the big bang black hole. Even now, galaxies are expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light (though this is relative to the galaxy, so no backwards time travel)

Returning to the original question: what happened before the big bang?

well, first we have the universe expanded past its event horizon

then the black hole expanded within its event horizon, while simultaneously the universe as we know it aged

and then, the universe particle exploded in an event known as the big bang.

Does that answer your question?

TheDude(167) Disputed
2 points

I would just love to contrdict that theory with another theory called Black Simultaneous Singularity Source ex Line Theory. If you make the statement that space is curved on a plane of existence of space, which is theoretically true, then you can have vector pairs that coincide with each other at a single point below the plane. Now, when Gravity is incorporated into the plane, the plane becomes curved due to Special Relativity(I believe), at least according to the model. Now, Einstein himself postulated the model that when something has mass, say a ball, it falls into a blanket and pulls downward on the blanket and attracts things around it. This is a very simplistic model for gravity. Now, apply this same model to curved Quantum Gravitation Space Plane and you have the universe. However, There are also the Singularities: Black Holes. You and I both Agree that Black Holes are Extremely High Gravity events as is the same with the Big Bang, or rather the small cube of energy that it was right before it exploded. I postualte that the absolute center of all black holes and that small Bang Cube of energy are eventually the same thing in the Black Hole Singularity Cycle. Basically, if you think about black holes, they weigh ALOT and so fall very very very far into the Blanket, all across space. Now, Because the blanket is curved like a parachute, these black holes actually begin to form a High Gravity event in the center of the universe, slowly sucking up all the matter in the universe so that it may be blown up once again in another Big Bang. Expansion of the universe doesnt matter as black holes will spawn all accross the universe until all the matteris sucked up once again and as soon as it all is in that one single cube of energy, that cube will be restored to equillibrium because it is all thats left in the universe because its the only point to relate to, therefore it makes the 180 degree line of equillibrium and explodes due to this instant change, causing yet another Big Bang in a never ending systme of Big Bangs. HA! Thats My Theory. Feel Free to destroy it as you see fit.

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

It makes sense, but why then is the rate of the expansion of the Universe increasing?

It should have been at maximum velocity the moments after the big bang, and since should have continued to slow, until eventually it would again flow toward some center if this were the case. Does this theory address expansion of the Universe?

protazoa(427) Disputed
1 point

That is a theory commonly referred to as "The Big Crunch"

However, it would seem that you believe these two theories are mutually exclusive. That is not so. You see, if the universe traveled backwards in time to approach its event horizon, then we are currently moving towards the creation of the universe particle. The particle that created our universe has not yet been formed.

When this universe collapses into a single point, it will- as you suggested- explode in a big bang.

Which-as I suggested- will force universe fragments to travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore back in time.

These fragments of the universe particle would then be the same matter/antimatter/strangematter composition that collapsed in the first place.

Rather than a cyclic nature of big bang, big crunch, because of the breach of the fourth dimension of time, the big bang and big crunch occur only once in universal time- yet occur infinitely in linear time as ones reference follows the universe.

The reason that time-travel is necessary in this situation is in order to adhere to the second law of thermodynamics, in that disorder of the universe can only increase. In your theory, where the universe infinitely fluctuates, entropy is constantly being "reset"

However, in my theory, entropy is always succumbing to gravity, becoming less and less ordered until it is the universe particle- the most stable state in reference to gravity. In a linear model, this is the end of the system, because as soon as the Big Bang occurs, disorder is negative and time is negative, which still adheres to disorder increasing over time.

flewk(1193) Disputed
1 point

Even if you cannot respond...

The big bang started with all of the universe condensed into a point- which I would like to point out is a black hole. The known observable universe has a mass of 3*10^55 grams. This amount of mass in a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters would be a black hole.

a point is most definitely less than a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters

While the early universe would have certainly behaved like a black hole beyond the event horizon, there is no way to know what happened within, much like a black hole. The Big Bang theory actually suggests that space expanded outwards. That means reality was expanding.

The name Big Bang is a misnomer. It is not an explosion in the sense that everything moves away from the center. Every piece of the universe moved away from each other.

This is different from a singularity.

Now, a black hole is an object with such immense gravitational attraction that not even light can escape. However, the radius of the universe today is 4.4e26 meters- we are not in a black hole.

It is postulated that nothing existed beyond the universe prior to the Big Bang, so we have no idea if the gravitational field even extended outwards.

Light would not even exist outside of the universe, at least not in the same way it exists here.

Since an object traveling at the speed of light would be unable to escape a black hole, yet the expanding universe did in fact escape, I can assume that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light.

General Relativity excludes the possibility of actual FTL. You can assume the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light, but you cannot assume that matter was moving beyond the speed of light. Think Futurama engine.

Black holes prevent matter and even light from escaping. Gravity does not have an effect on space as General Relativity is based on the fact that curvatures in space create gravitational fields.

According to Einsteins theory of relativity, time decreases as speed increases, halting at the speed of light. If the universe were expanding faster than the speed of light, it would have been traveling backwards in time.

Special Relativity is different from General Relativity.

Special Relativity asserts that light does not have a inertia reference point. It is constant. It also explains the concept of dilation in time and distance. This does not mean that time stops at the speed of light. Special Relativity is only relevant for STL speeds.

up until very recently (on a cosmic scale), when the universe reached a radius past 4.456e25 meters, the universe was in fact getting younger as it expanded past the event horizon of the big bang black hole. Even now, galaxies are expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light (though this is relative to the galaxy, so no backwards time travel)

Expansion of space/reality is different from the displacement of matter. General Relativity and Special Relativity apply to space/reality.

Matter exists in space. It can move around in space. Space might exist in something else and would have its own set of rules in that medium.

The universe was not getting younger because the event horizon most likely did not exist outside of the universe, at least not in the way that it would exist in our universe. It would also not get younger because you have misinterpreted Special Relativity.

The expansion of space is different from the movement of matter. Everything in the universe is expanding (maybe uniformly). That means every piece of it, including us. Galaxies do not move faster than light in terms of space. The space of distant galaxies do expand away from one another at FTL.

According to the current model, we are accelerating. Eventually, every particle in the universe will be expanding away from one another at FTL. No idea how that works.

Returning to the original question: what happened before the big bang?

well, first we have the universe expanded past its event horizon

then the black hole expanded within its event horizon, while simultaneously the universe as we know it aged

and then, the universe particle exploded in an event known as the big bang.

Does that answer your question?

No. It does not answer the question. You have a mistaken interpretation of several scientific theories/laws.

1 point

Whatever came immediately before it. You can call whatever it is whatever you want. Whatever it was led directly to us no matter how improbable we are.

Side: Whatever preceded it
TheDude(167) Disputed
1 point

Well, not necessarily directly. One could easily make the argument of multiple gods. But what aboout a solidified theory? Have one? That would be most excellent.

Side: Whatever preceded it
1 point

This is a half-thought-out idea I developed a while ago:

Time is the conceptual expression of the physical changes of the universe. Without change, time may be considered frozen. Let us leave this fact alone for the moment and examine a few other details

As understood by physicists, the second law of thermodynamics (matter or energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but merely transformed from one to the other), implies that the universe will eventually be uniformly distributed energy. At this point, there won't be change any longer, and neither will there be time as we know it.

But a new theory suggests that out of this uniformity a new universe will arise. The mechanism, the theory says, is the constant random motion of energy (and matter). Given infinite time (though time has stopped) the constant random motion of energy will happen to coalesce into a single so-called "egg" from which will spring the new universe. The "egg" would not explode because of its uniformity within, but again, due to the constant random motion, the egg would develop a slight asymmetry causing instantaneous expansion.

But were we to hold this theory as correct, we may logically conclude that 1)at spaces of relative uniformity, time has ceased to exist or asymptotically slowed to zero. Therefore this proves there is no constant as time (i.e. time in one location is subjectively different from another as related by the uniformity of the surrounding energy/matter) and 2) within our own universe, multiple universes may exist concurrently as energy randomly coalesces into eggs and expands. Indeed we may even surmise that our own universe is a part of a much larger multi-verse.

Critical to these concepts is that there is no actual break in time. When one "universe' becomes uniform, time has frozen, only to later be restarted by the explosion of an "egg.” Therefore, we may conclude that the death and rebirth of the universe, rather than having two distinct points, is actually a single instant. The moment energy is uniform is the same moment the new universe begins.

But what does this mean in a human context? The infinite expression of a physical universe (time) allows for infinitely many universes. Probability dictates that with an infinite suply of universes, there are bound to be copies, or nearly identical copies. Our lives have been lived out exactly as it is an infinite number of times. But despite this nihilism, one can look for a more positive philosophical meaning within these deductions.

(And here let the speculation begin)

Perhaps the cessation of life or the emergence of consciousness is similar to the death and rebirth of a universe. Death would be interpreted as the entropic relationship of consciousness, i.e. that the energy in a given body returns to the same level that was occupied before the entity existed. Similarly, birth would be random convergence and explosion of consciousness into a being. To take this concept further, one soon realizes that true death never really occurs: death is merely the instantaneous cessation of a changing consciousness and the simultaneous re-expression as the consciousness "explodes" into a new being.

One may also draw from the conclusion that as our own universe is part of a larger "multi-verse,” an individual consciousness is part of the "multi-conscience.”

Side: Whatever preceded it
1 point

big bag theory..............................................................................................................

Supporting Evidence: rta kitchen cabinets (www.cabinetsdirectrta.com)
Side: Whatever preceded it
1 point

Well in the theory science may call it Big Bang which causes the creation of our Universe! no one ever measure the vastness of our Universe, perhaps our Universe is one in millions other Universes which are traveling away from each other like Galaxies do. Our knowledge about this universe is based on our assumptions; we never have traveled to any other planet exact what we call EARTH. A theory is accepted today could be replaced by a better one. So no one surly answer what causes the Universe to exist. If we assume one theory and accept it Why not we try anther theory of creation, which is almost similar to the one we are being taught in schools, this is a theory of Theology. Where God almighty claims to be the creator of this Universe, He proclaims that He is the Only creator of all that exist, and He is a best of creators with infinitive knowledge, He creates thing from nothing and with no prior structure and remain busy in His new inventions. He also claims that He has created this Universe with greater might from nothingness than from a single point...

Can such a theory answer our question? Should we accept such a theory? …

Side: Whatever preceded it

Since no human being was around, the best answer to give is, "I Don't Know."

Side: Whatever preceded it