CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
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.
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?
the expansion of the universe is not momentum from the big bang, rather it is due to the negative pressure of dark energy. That is why expansion is from all points, not from a single central point.
My understanding is that dark matter and matter are destroyed - or turned to energy upon to contact, thus the expansion. It still leaves the question though, if this theory is accurate at what point and by what means would the Universe eventually quit its expansion, and begin again falling in on itself.
You are confusing dark matter with antimatter. matter and anti matter will annihilate, releasing photons.
Dark matter, however, is a theorized substance inferred to exist by astronomical observations between cosmic. its exact composition is not known, but i have theories tagged if you care to read them
And gravity, a force that causes mass to attract from infinitely far away, will eventually pull all matter into black holes, which will then fuse into supermassive black holes, which will then fuse into a single singularity.
the black hole phase is predicted to occur when the universe is 10e40 to 10e100 years old according to the big freeze time frame- but I could not find a time period for the big crunch
Supporting Evidence:
dark matter
(en.wikipedia.org)
Either way though, the energy which is currently causing accelerated expansion would need to cease in order for gravity's energy to overcome whichever energy is causing it.
While the majority of galaxies like the Milky Way will be swallowed by the massive black hole in the center. Even after most of the matter has been absorbed to the center of each individual supermassive black hole, it is not the same as the original Big Bang, because the matter here would have contained the matter from every single black hole in the center plus all of the other stuff making up the Universe at large.
Basically, what would cause the accelerated expansion to cease. I just don't see it from this theory. Is the energy causing the expansion limited, and we simply have not reached its apex?
that is it exactly. Dark matter has a negative pressure, causing it to expand. As it expands, its density decreases, and its pressure decreases in magnitude (becomes less negative).
Think of dark matter like a spring in between all points of matter. At the big bang, the spring was compressed. When the big bang occurred, the spring was no longer being compressed. We are, at the moment, still feeling the effect of the dark matter "spring" decompressing, pushing matter away from each other. Once the spring is maxed, however, only gravity will remain.
Remember that dark matter is matter, and therefore is attracted by gravity as well. once it is done expanding, it too will contract into the black holes (in theory)
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible
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.
I, personally, disagree with the time-light relation. But Ill work with you here.
I prefer my own title by the way. It sounds far more, hmmm, protefoire.
Also, Id like for you to directly quote my theory if you dont mind so I may see a direct, clarified comparison for I am having a touch of difficulty seeing where you are making youre comparisons and amendments.
I argue that time is irrelevant. Black Holes will eventually suck up the universe into the single point of energy and that energy cube will explode due to a lack of intradimensional strings to another particle or point. What you dont state is why the cube explodes. I say its because due to a lack of extremely low relative gravity to the cube, it violently returns to the original spatial plane where every other particle averaged in the model and explodes by rupture. Can you think of a reason why the "Big Bang" Happens?
Yes. Entropy IS being reset. I argue that the Law of Thermodynamics halts to attraction, the one singularity in our universe. Its interesting in that anything can be at absolute rest and still exert force on the universe by existing. Gravity, due to its nature, is what screws over entropy, and in the end, Zero/Cohesion/order wins.
WAIT A SECOND. WE AGREE. Gravity is the singularity the makes entropy its bitch. So we agree that theres a bang and then a crunch, correct? An infinite system of the two? Because if so, then I believe we have arrived to the same page.
yes, I believe we are. In fact, the only difference between my theory and yours is that you argue that time goes on infinitely, in expanding/contracting cycles
whereas I argue that time itself actually resets in the process of exploding faster than the speed of light, forming an infinite cycle within a finite length of time, thus eluding the grasp of entropy.
And I argue that entropy and time do not matter, merely that time is an infinite passage that the universe in any state follows and that entropic particles and laws are sucked up by black holes and delivered back to the beginning for yet another ride through the space/time continuum. Excellent. Now whos correct? THAT, is the real question. I cannot think of any immediate evidence or mathematics for my argument and I know that youve given some numbers for yours, but no one really knows. We can only postulate theoretically and tear down theory based on more accurate theory. Sigh. What a question.
if entropy "did not matter", all of the laws of the universe would be in question. All evidence has shown that matter will only flow 'downhill' into a lower state of entropy, unless energy is input into the system. Since the universe is a universal system (no pun intended), there is no external source of energy. Therefore, energy can only travel downhill. If the point right before the big bang is the lowest possible energy state (the universe moves this state), and the big bang is the highest possible energy state (the universe moves away from this state), there would have to be a massive uphill shift in energy state- which has absolutely no evidence to suggest it is remotely possible. However, if the universe is contracting, then expanding at the speed of light, it would be traveling backwards in time: thus energy would start at highest energy, and decrease overtime, satisfying thermodynamics.
Also, black holes were originally thought to violate thermodynamics: by destroying, not creating, energy. It was later found that they convert matter (a high energy state) into quantum radiation (a low energy state): so, even black holes abide by thermodynamics.
You are correct in saying that "We can only postulate theoretically and tear down theory based on more accurate theory.
That does not mean that I do not have the more accurate theory at the moment.
Okay, Im saying entropy doesnt matter IN THE LONG RUN. Black holes would eventually suck up everything regardless. As for the no evidence thing, I agree. There is no evidence. HOWEVER, in my theory, I argue that in order to have gravity, you require a system, one particle attracted to another. A RELATIVE system. Therefore, when all other energy and matter in the universe is sucked into the one central point, the universe essentially explodes once again for a slew of potential reasons.
One is that the gravitational plane, as in the gravity model elastic blanket, remains in one constant position forever while other particles fall into it and blah blah blah refer to my original argument. Now if thats true, then when the central point is all thats left, it skyrockets back to equilibrium and then explodes once it hits the flat point.
Another is that you basically follow the one above, but that the point emits energy as it flows back toward equilibrium and then flies past the gravity plane, and then comes back through it, and then flies back through again going up, and so on until it achieves equilibrium in relation to the Gravity plane. This would also happen over the course of a few seconds or may not have actually happened in the form of the Big Bang, but is what will happen the secind time the universe goes back to what it was.
There are a few other potential explanations, but I wanna see how you respond to these first. Also, if you can, disprove what I said in the opening before approaching these explanations, but disprove it with an open mind if you will. I dont want you coming at me with just time reversal or entropy please.
"I dont want you coming at me with just time reversal or entropy please."
In other words, you do not want me to use the only difference between our viewpoints? I am sorry but this cannot be done. Without discussing time reversal or entropy, we are both arguing the same exact thing:
that the universe expands and contracts.
So, in order to have some discussion over any points, I fear that I must bring these points up again.
"Okay, Im saying entropy doesnt matter IN THE LONG RUN."
However, all evidence suggests that energy conversions are downhill only. The universe cannot ever gain order: at least there is no observation of it. That is why the time travel aspect is necessary.
If one is increasing entropy forwards in time, it is the same as decreasing entropy backwards in time.
It is only if time itself is warped that any reverse-entropy is supported by modern physics.
"it skyrockets back"
we both agree on this. The only difference between our theories is that mine accounts for entropy via time travel. This, in effect, does not actually explain why the universe would 'skyrocket'.
One possible theory is that random quantum motion will eventually create a point of critical van der waal forces that will thrust the point apart.
"but is what will happen the [second] time the universe goes back to what it was"
again, you are not actually explaining what causes this 'gravity plane' phenomena. Also, I highly doubt this is the second time the universe has been in existence. Sometime, in infinite proportions of years in the future or past, our universal doubles must have had this exact conversation, each considering their universe to be the first universe.
Theres no evidence of it ever happening because it only happens ONCE: The Big Bang Singularity. We havent seen it happen.You have to visualize my model in order to get the idea and then it hits you like, as you previously put it, a grenade to the face. Which I enjoyed.
We both agree. Hmmm. NOT EXACTLY. My entire argument is based on the Gravitational model. If you think about it the way I have, which could be wrong, I accept, you come out with a nice theory that works rather well and explains EVERYTHING. But it kind of requires a rather large amount of creative imagination to find and view, though not to say that that would make it unviable. Also, I disagree that random quantum motion would have caused the original Big Bang. It doesnt seem plausable to me, as you would have to have something creating force before it, which I offered Metabinary Mechanics as a possible solution to that problem.
I said that the idea behind the Gravitational plane model is Basically Einstein's Life Work combined with modern Special Relativity. Look it up and see, I cant really cite it very well. As for the universe placement... thing, I argue that we'll never know whether or not this is universe numero uno or 7,056,443,618, Especially if the universe before this one had an adverse affect on this universe's creation through your very same quantum motion. In the end, the question comes down to whether or not you accept this model I have propsed and think about it from my view or stick with individual time travel elements. Or at least, so I think. Your move, Protozoa. I wait in envy.
"My entire argument is based on the Gravitational model"
as is mine. Gravity is was causes the infinite contractions.
"Metabinary Mechanics"
"Your search - metabinary mechanics - did not match any articles."
did you mean something else?
the reason Quantum motion would explain the big bang is because any disturbance of the delicate balance of the singularity would cause this extremely dense particle to move. A single boson out of place would essentially rupture the stability of the entire particle.
compare it to nuclear fission. by disrupting a single neutron, the entire molecule is split. The heavier the particle, the easier it is to disturb. Hydrogen is nigh impossible to split- only to fuse. Uranium is much easier to split. A particle with all of the universe composing it would need hardly any trigger to explode: a quark moving out of place should be more than enough.
And since you do not agree with the light/time correlation, how would you explain the absence of entropy in the universe caused by an infinite cycle?
I explain it through time travel, but I am sure there are multiple explanations.
I thought you said that your cause of the infinite contractions was that the universe will eventually accellerate past the speed of light as it expands away from the center of the universe. Not Gravitational Atraction. Clarification perhaps?
Metabinary Mechanics are the application of ones and zeros into systems in order to find the attributes of order and chaos. In this case, 1 is chaos and zero is order. The argument I make is that the universe HAS to happen at one point or another because there is the slightest possibility of it happening. The same argument can be applied to electrons and protons combining to form neutrons:Because it is energetically favorable. The Universe happened because it was energetically favorable and there was no resistance to it. Thats my explanation. Feel free to ask for more explanation. I feel like this isnt really enough.
Entropy isnt absent. At least it isnt in my explanation if thats what your talking about. All particles and laws affected by Entropy, that being all of them, are eventually sucked up by black holes regardless of where they are because, essentially, Balck holes come and find them. One way or another. I disregard Dark Matter's existence as well by the way, more or less.
Essentially, the universe will travel faster than the speed of light at two lengths of time.
At first, the big bang expands into the universe faster than the speed of light due to quantum interactions, and continues expanding due to dark matter.
Then, the snap, crackle, pop, jerk, acceleration, and finally velocity of the expanding universe will change direction due to gravity, resulting in a contraction of the universe.
As the universe contracts, it eventually passes the speed of light, until it contracts into the big bang particle.
Time travel is not the means of resetting the universe. it is simply a way to account for unidirectional energy conversion.
Essentially, the universe will travel faster than the speed of light at two lengths of time
How will the universe travel at two lengths of time if time is an infinite passage?
continues expanding due to dark matter.
If it continues expanding due to dark matter, how did the dark matter get further out than the edge of the Big Bang expansion sphere? Wouldnt the most basic particle be the fastest one out there(Thus far that would be the photon I believe)?
"The expanding universe will change direction due to gravity, resulting in a contraction of the universe."
How will gravity change the direction if dark matter is sucking the universe outward?
"As the universe contracts, it eventually passes the speed of light, until it contracts into the big bang particle."
What does the speed of light phrase have to do with anything? Does the universe have to contract at a speed faster than c to make the big bang particle? Clarification please.
The Time Travel part makes sense to me as youve stated it, but how does the universe reset itself then? If its gravity, where is all this mass coming from all of a sudden in the center of the universe? Is the center of the universe when the big bang happened the exact same place as where all the universe's matter will contract into the Big Bang particle? Answer all of these individually if you dont mind.
How will the universe travel at two lengths of time if time is an infinite passage?
In my model, time is infinite in the sense that it is circular- specifically a double coil.
There are two lengths of time that travel in the opposite direction: which would be during contraction and expulsion.
If it continues expanding due to dark matter, how did the dark matter get further out than the edge of the Big Bang expansion sphere? Wouldnt the most basic particle be the fastest one out there(Thus far that would be the photon I believe)?
dark matter is essentially 'void' material. It is not at the edge of space, it is space.
How will gravity change the direction if dark matter is sucking the universe outward?
dark matter is attracted by gravity.
although the rate of expansion is accelerating, gravity has infinite range, whereas dark matter will eventually decompress to its maximum potential. At this point, gravity would have turned around the acceleration of the universe, until eventually the dark matter itself is then sucked in by gravity, reversing the expansion entirely.
What does the speed of light phrase have to do with anything? Does the universe have to contract at a speed faster than c to make the big bang particle? Clarification please.
At a certain point, the universe will condense into one or more black holes. since light itself cannot escape a black hole's event horizon, one must assume that objects at the event horizon accelerate inwards at a speed greater than the speed of light.
The big bang particle is, containing all of the universe in a single point, is an enormously dense black hole. Therefore, when contracting the universe, all matter will be accelerating into said particle faster than the escape velocity (which at a shwarzchild radius is 3e9 m/s, the speed of light)
"Is the center of the universe when the big bang happened the exact same place as where all the universe's matter will contract into the Big Bang particle? Answer all of these individually if you dont mind"
yes. keep in mind that as the mass shifts toward a single point, spacetime itself will also bend into this point. in essence, anywhere the universe collects into a single point will be the only point in the universe: no matter 'where' they collect or start, the result will be the same.
So we agree that Time is infinite, though, correct? Regardless of its shape. Good.
Your interpretation of Dark matter is wrong. Check the link. Maybe you can refine your theory around it. OR ACCEPT MINE. EITHER IS WELCOME.
Skipping to Bing Bang particle paragraph, I disagree that the Particle is a black hole. Although my entire theory is based around black holes sucking up all matter, which is also what you say by the way, it is the central point of all these black holes that is the EXACT SMAE SINGULARITY, ONE PARTICLE. You just say that a Black hole at the center of the universe would suck up everything, wehereas I say a series of random blackholes will suck up the universe randomly at random points in space and time. This is really the only difference we have left for our theories, I believe.
Supporting Evidence:
Dark Matter
(en.wikipedia.org)
My interpretation of Dark Matter was simplified to be easily understood by the masses. If I could explain in detail what dark matter was, I would be a billionaire.
All that is known is that it is unobserved matter that accounts for the discrepancy between the gravitational predictions and actual data.
"You just say that a Black hole at the center of the universe would suck up everything"
I fear you have misunderstood me.
There would be one enormous black hole: the big bang particle. However, during the 'crunch', the universe would go through a black hole era
however, rather than dissipate as suggested by the big freeze, I believe that these black holes would simply aggregate into one supermassive blackhole.
Okay, I see where youre going here. I agree with the supermassive black hole. However, what makes the Big Bang particle explode?
Also, you say that the Big Bang particle itself is the Supermassive Black Hole. I diagree. The CENTER of the Black hole, the singularity, is the Big Bang particle and the Big Bang particle is center of all Black holes at all times, even now. All Black Holes are connected in the sense that they all suck up matter into the exact same Big Bang particle at all times. Or so I say.
I believe your interpretations of Dark matter were a bit to science-fiction. Dark matter is not vorpal matter occupying all space at all times. If we surmise that Dark matter is indeed neutralinos, then it would rim all major galaxies at all points in the universe, not just the universal horizon. Therefore, It would, in essence, randomly attract other matter in the universe, not Just send it outward or inward.
Regardless of the dark matter problem, we seem to agree that in the end, there will only be your proposed Black Hole Era that will eventually suck up everything. However, Are black holes composed of matter themselves? Or are the giant spheres of nothing just points of extreme gravity and therefore not composed of anything but the Big Bang Particle? I believe the latter is correct and therefore, once all matter in the universe has been sucked into the Big Bang Particle, the Black Hole Era will instantly end and the Bing Bang Particle will explode due to lack of other matter to relate to in the universe.
So the question is: What happens when the Big Bang particle finally explodes and what else is there in the universe when that happens and why is it there or not there? Intricacies, Intricacies.
Which-as I suggested- will force universe fragments to travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore back in time.
Light travels in the medium of the universe. The universe can expand at any speed. We have not been able to measure anything outside of the universe to make a statement regarding the nature of the medium it travels along.
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.
No.
You are referencing anti-particles that travel back in time. When a pair of particle and anti-particle is created, the anti-particle does travel back in time and the particle travels forwards or vice-versa. They must go in opposite directions because it is a conservative action. This duality is still from a linear reference frame.
There is nothing to suggest that a duality results in an infinite reference frame.
What would suggest an infinite reference frame is your previous explanation of the universe without regard to duality. As long as the two particles annihilate one another at the initial point of creation, it will be a circular reference frame and therefore infinite. This means that it is cyclic. There is no "rather than a cyclic nature" for your explanation.
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"
Entropy does not have to reset. A universe can move towards heat death as it cycles. There could be some unknown form of entropy reversal for each Big Bang or Big Crunch.
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.
Gravity does not produce more entropy in the way you describe. It seeks to bring all matter into one place. Entropy is just heat death which is related to the transfer between energy and work in a system. While gravity can do work on a system, "entropy does not succumb to gravity".
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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? …