the first universe?

[Tavasion]

hhhmmm? maybe? yes? no?

[Howie]

I voted yes. But nowone can know. Infinite time is impossible to grasp. When they thought their was a BIG bang where all the universe imploded on itself I think it would have been more applicable for this to have been repeated. Now that they are convinced the universe is expanding into nothingness it seems that it would not take a coarse of beginning again. I really have not a clue

[juroara]

I voted no. The Big Bang is the silliest theory I have heard - not saying science is stupid just saying science has a long way to go. It hardly explains where the substance that created the Big Bang came from. one strange theory I read was that matter, or existance is infinite. And the Big Bang is merely a death/rebirth cycle of that existance which is infinite.

[BeautifulDreamer]

No. I think there are tons of Universes, the space inbetween them being nothingness. TONS of universes are made, and pop like a bubble, but others, like ours, maintain it's form for a while.

[Yatahaze]

Well, I wouldn't think this universe is the first form of existence as such. I'm pretty sure there have been phases of non-existence of anything: without phases of non-existence there probably wouldn't be phases of existence (wouldn't make much sense). And those phases weren't actuall phases because they are timeless (because time doesn't exist then). So that means the phase of non-existence is actually existing right now, only not in a timely or spacely sense, since it is actually not existing in time or space or any medium anywhere else. It's just fluctuating to make existence possible. And also it's infinitely small. And this is crazy metaphysical stuff with no evidence for nothing, so don't take it too seriously.

[Patrick]

What seems most likely to me is that there's a big bang, the universe expands, eventually it collapses in the 'big crunch', and then it starts all over, and this cycle has been going on for infinity, and will forever continue. I also think it's most likely that the universe is exactly the same each cycle (also meaning there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each remaining exactly the same throughout these cycles (which also handily explains time travel paradoxes)).

[Invader]

What seems most likely to me is that there's a big bang, the universe expands, eventually it collapses in the 'big crunch', and then it starts all over, and this cycle has been going on for infinity, and will forever continue. I also think it's most likely that the universe is exactly the same each cycle (also meaning there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each remaining exactly the same throughout these cycles (which also handily explains time travel paradoxes)). [/b] A simple law of the universe: Everything, and I mean everything, has a beginning. The seasons are a cycle, but they began with the creation of the earth. The life and death of stars is a cycle, but that began with the beginning of matter in the universe. The universe had to have a beginning, because we have a thing called Time. Because of time, there can be no such thing as going infinitely backwards. The way it could have begun is if a being from a universe without time created our own universe. Some people see this being as god, others as the omnipotent or alien force, etc. And then you have the few people that don't believe in logic at all.

[Bosco]

That question is too hard to answer * * * What seems most likely to me is that there's a big bang, the universe expands, eventually it collapses in the 'big crunch', and then it starts all over, and this cycle has been going on for infinity, and will forever continue. I also think it's most likely that the universe is exactly the same each cycle (also meaning there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each remaining exactly the same throughout these cycles (which also handily explains time travel paradoxes))[/b] thats a good reasoning

[Dangeruss]

depends on how you define universe. "Uni" refers to "one" and so by definition there can only be one. On the other hand, string theory postulates 11 dimensions and multiple, parellel universes. So the word is rapidly gaining meanings and we dont have much vocabulary which serves to disambiguate them. but that's somewhat beside the point. I think there's only one infinity, as it were, but I think the universe as we know it is not a one-time deal. I'm sure that it goes through birth and death just like everything else in nature. i dont buy the idea that it's exactly the same every time, either. Existence is just far too chaotic in nature for that to be true. And what would be the point of that? Neither of us knows for sure, but I like to think that chaos is the driving force of the universe, not ordered predictability.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Dangeruss depends on how you define universe. "Uni" refers to "one" and so by definition there can only be one. On the other hand, string theory postulates 11 dimensions and multiple, parellel universes. So the word is rapidly gaining meanings and we dont have much vocabulary which serves to disambiguate them. but that's somewhat beside the point. I think there's only one infinity, as it were, but I think the universe as we know it is not a one-time deal. I'm sure that it goes through birth and death just like everything else in nature. i dont buy the idea that it's exactly the same every time, either. Existence is just far too chaotic in nature for that to be true. And what would be the point of that? Neither of us knows for sure, but I like to think that chaos is the driving force of the universe, not ordered predictability. Good point in both areas. Who knows where these strings of energy may lead us some day. Continuity? Because there could be parallel universes does not discount that they could still be one does it? About nature. It seems very likely to me as well. Just because it is on such a grand scale a life cycle would be befitting to ALL of nature.

[Belisarius]

The way I see it there are two possibilities. The Universe began at a single point and is becoming increasingly complex and ordered into infinity OR The universe is in a continuous cycle going from extremely small and simple through a chaotic episode as it grows larger and into a complex and ordered system and then back into its simplest state again.

[M-Cat]

I think that there is an endless cycle of universes. At any point in time there are an infinite amount of universes, and when one ends another begins, and they all blend into one another, so there is no beginning of time but a cycle of time. Its a strange thing to think about.

[lord_cliff_turtle]

What seems most likely to me is that there's a big bang, the universe expands, eventually it collapses in the 'big crunch', and then it starts all over, and this cycle has been going on for infinity, and will forever continue. [/b] I agree with you on this one, as it makes sense that as a single universe gets bigger, it loses energy blah blah, gravity blah blah crush (I'm sure you get the way it works). It makes sense that a universe destroys itself as nature normally does. However I disagree here: I also think it's most likely that the universe is exactly the same each cycle (also meaning there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each remaining exactly the same throughout these cycles (which also handily explains time travel paradoxes)). [/b] I would ask you what your reasoning is that each succesive universe would be the same as the previous. In my opinion, I believe that chaos would cause different matter-antimatter collisions, providing a different mix of matter/antimatter (dark matter even?) as well as energy levels during each big bang. Leading to a different sequence of events in that universe, thus providing a chain of different universes. I also agree with everybody mentioning parallel universes, and I think that this provides an infinate number of chains of infinatly different universes. Which in my humble opinion and belief system proves why anything improbable in this universe exists. Also, some of the possibilities include the lack of a Big Crunch, so many chains will eventually stop dead. And due to probability I think they all will, sooner or later. I'd rather not get into my time-travel theory, as I'm not sure myself how it works, let alone trying to explain it. So far nobody has understood it. Of course, this entire argument assumes that the Big Bang theory is actually correct, as well as parallel dimensions and several other assumtions. These are merely my thoughts on the matter from my own, possibly flawed and simplistic, reasoning. Apologies for the length of this post, I'm quite tired.

[KING]

What seems most likely to me is that there's a big bang, the universe expands, eventually it collapses in the 'big crunch', and then it starts all over, and this cycle has been going on for infinity, and will forever continue. I also think it's most likely that the universe is exactly the same each cycle (also meaning there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each remaining exactly the same throughout these cycles (which also handily explains time travel paradoxes)). [/b] I personally hate that theory. It grates on me. The thought that there is one existence endlesly repeating itself is unexiting and does, somewhat, bring a certain pointlesness to life. Thankfully it's pretty much defunct as it seems that gravity isnt slowing down the expansion of the universe at all, its almost certainly accelerating outward and out of control. A lot more exiting, dont you think? I voted no. The Big Bang is the silliest theory I have heard - not saying science is stupid just saying science has a long way to go. It hardly explains where the substance that created the Big Bang came from. one strange theory I read was that matter, or existance is infinite. And the Big Bang is merely a death/rebirth cycle of that existance which is infinite. [/b] In all likleyhood there was no substance that created the universe. It was probably an unstable quantum fluxuation of 'nothing', as it were. Or god. Or the collision of two other universes floating about in the multiverse. Or it is a simulation on a computer existing in a 'real' universe. Oh and if you think that theory is strange you should read up on some others.

[Kaniaz]

I imagine - just for fun - that the universe is fragile, and could blow up at any second for no reason whatsoever. Now that given, there's probably been countless universes that failed in the first second, hour, day... After all, without the univese there's no time as we know it and we wouldn't know of one universe to the next, so that's no problem. And so far we're doing pretty good. Nobody bang into anything too hard though or it might all go kaput.

[Universal Mind]

Since our time is a property of our universe, the words "not first" might not be the proper words. Other universes would be external to our fourth dimension of time, so the right word might be an extradimensional virtual synonym. Outside of that semantic disagreement, I say, in response to the question, "No." Whatever is the source of our universe could, for all we know, be the source of trillions and quadrillions and octillions of other universes. Here's an interesting idea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[Neruo]

I think alot co-exist. And time is just a thing of Our demension/universe =) But I do think there are more universes. Maybe even infinitely much... No way of telling.