A flaw with the Big Crunch/Bounce theory

It has been endlessly discussed that there is a school of thought that the universe at eventually will start to retract towards the point of the original singularity. Further to this it has also been suggested that it has already happened many times.

My thought on this is pretty simple and possibly over simplified, but that is how my mind works.

Basically, if there was an originating Big Bang and all the matter was flung out into the cosmos, there would be little to no matter left at the origin point, therefore nothing to generate any kind of gravity in order for everything to be drawn back together.

Any thoughts? Is this a reasonable theory?

[edit on 23/11/2008 by VIKINGANT]

well the contracting universe is the old theory ,it has been replaced by the recent discovery that the universe is expanding like a loaf of bread ,in other words there are empty voids of expanding nothingness in that are themselves expanding making exponentially even more nothing

so the universe is just going to expand itself to death

Gravity is the weakest of the forces that interact in the universe

they are Electro Magnetism ,Strong Nuclear Weak Nuclear and Gravity,

There is not enough matter /mas /therefore gravity to hold the universe together

At least that's what I heard

[edit on (11/23/0808 by invisiblewoman]

No one really has the faintest clue if the universe expands infinitely, expands indefinitely but within a finite space, or if it contracts. They guess at matter they have not directly in any way observed, and maybe this new accelerator will get us closer, and maybe it won't.

reply to post by redled


I know but that's why I included the disclaimer at the bottom of my post


nobody understands everything they think they know about this or a lot of other things

But that is what the latest theory du jour is

new calculations and and whatnot will make this this theory to, as yesterday as the flat earth

We don't really know all that much about gravity in comparison to the other forces. My theory is that gravity is a dynamic variable whose strength depends on the current amount of distance between the parts of the whole (Raisin Bun Model). I propose gravity and the Casimir forces are 2 sides of the same coin, gravity prevents the universe's ever expanding drift into oblivion and the Casimir forces prevent the universe from ever achieving a singularity, starting the process again with an explosive big bang.

RINSE & REPEAT AD NAUSEUM INFINITUM

Peace,

The Don

[edit on 23-11-2008 by TheRealDonPedros]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by TheRealDonPedros]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by TheRealDonPedros]

sorry m8, you're in over your head. 'simple' and cosmological physics don't blend. I'm interested in the subj., but by no means an expert. But one flaw with your central premise is the notion of a centre that stuff kinda flew out of. its a common fallacy.

the whole universe is the centre. it wasn't so much that 'stuff' flew out froma central point in space into other space, it was space (and time, confusingly) itself that expanded.

i could go on but won't because i'll doubtless get wrapped up in riddles and get important stuff wrong.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
It has been endlessly discussed that there is a school of thought that the universe at eventually will start to retract towards the point of the original singularity. Further to this it has also been suggested that it has already happened many times.

My thought on this is pretty simple and possibly over simplified, but that is how my mind works.

Basically, if there was an originating Big Bang and all the matter was flung out into the cosmos, there would be little to no matter left at the origin point, therefore nothing to generate any kind of gravity in order for everything to be drawn back together.

Any thoughts? Is this a reasonable theory?

where does it say that the crunch has to ocurr at the exat same point that the bang originated?

imagine it from a different perspective...

where the bang is the initial point of chaos.. where all matter is unconscious..
and eventually over googolplex "years".. or however "long" (if time even stays at the "standard" we now conceptualize it at...that over that "time".. all matter eventually falls into "order" .. or "organizes" itself .. into patterns which allow it to be conscious..

so eventually all matter becomes conscious.. or "part" of a conscious organization..
through life..

and all "souls" eventually merge into one godhead.. and become one again.. order out of chaos..
and become more and more like their creator..
then once all is one.. it can all explode again in order to experience more in a new cycle of existence.. with more possibilities..possibilities that weren't experienced last time...

click my sig link for more info...

reply to post by eniac


Not sure if that last post was directed at me?


"the whole universe is the centre. it wasn't so much that 'stuff' flew out froma central point in space into other space, it was space (and time, confusingly) itself that expanded."

That's exactly what the raisin bun model implies, wiki JJ Thompson as I'm quite sure that he came up with this theory.


Peace

.......waiting to see what happens with the Hadron Collider!........

reply to post by eniac

Simplified does not necessarily mean simple. Just easier to comprehend.
The most common big bang scenario is described as a single point exploding out in all directions.
I am not saying I am the authority on this (or any other subject) but I do have a decent grasp on it.
I would be interested to hear more of what you have to say. Although there are only a few base thoeries on this matter (Big bang, big bounce, big expansion) the versions of each do vary, and that I what I like to hear.

Originally posted by prevenge
where does it say that the crunch has to ocurr at the exat same point that the bang originated?

While I was typing the Op I had this very thought. But is a different context to yours.
The problem I had with it was, that as mentioned above, my thoughts were based on the 'common' thought based on the outward explosion. This being the case, how could it ever come together again if everything is 'flung' in all directions.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


"where does it say that the crunch has to ocurr at the exat same point that the bang originated? "

It cant be anywhere else, its like the expression "wherever you go, there you are".

Think of the Cartesian plane (xyz) on a graph, if the universe started at 0,0,0 (add another 0 for you time nuts) and crunched back to 30,25,-200 that would imply that there is still something filling the missing numbers between x,y,z. Impossible as the universe is all encompassing, its like running from your own shadow.

Peace

Peace





[edit on 23-11-2008 by TheRealDonPedros]

Gravity may seem weak, but comes questions like what is speed of gravity.
Having Hawkings make up Hawkings Rays to support his open universe theory.
I see as closed unverse with infinite bangs occuring, in Gita says Rama exhale Rama inhale. It needs to be understood that in the hole time frame picture of this occurance, we are only in first micro seconds of bang, this has just happened. It will take time for gravity to regain control.

I don't see this taking a googol of years but maybe only 10s of trillions, I could also see by that time a sort of clean up crew formed to help prepair for next bang.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by googolplex]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by googolplex]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by googolplex]

reply to post by VIKINGANT


The force of gravity is a property of matter, of mass. The center of mass is the center point of the force. The center of the Earth is the point from which our local gravity "originates" but it is not the center of mass of the solar system. That point is close to the center of the sun because the mass of the sun is so much greater than the mass of rest of the entire solar system. The mass of the solar system is, in turn, overwhelmed by the mass of the Milky Way.

It is the center of mass of the universe on which the big crunch would happen. There wouldn't necessarily be any "thing", any mass, there. It is just a convergence of all of the gravitational vectors of the universe, no matter how diffuse the matter producing those vectors is.

This is assuming there is enough mass to reverse the ongoing expansion. I don't think we're clear on whether or not that is the case.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by bekonabroom


Last I heard the Hadron Collider was, broken

Yes I heard they had black hole problem, don't tell anyone. If they are unable to stop it will eat entire universe.

reply to post by googolplex


I thought it broke before a Black hole but, OH WELL!

Yes if can't fix we will be center of big crunch, if they can stop it heard they might change it into one of those solent Green facilities. All they need few good Gama burst add a good starter and wala solent green.

reply to post by googolplex


You know what Soylent Green is don't you?

IT'S PEOPLE!

reply to post by invisiblewoman


WHAT!!! I am definately changing my lunch order!!
WAITER!!

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
reply to post by eniac

 

Not sure if that last post was directed at me?


"the whole universe is the centre. it wasn't so much that 'stuff' flew out froma central point in space into other space, it was space (and time, confusingly) itself that expanded."

That's exactly what the raisin bun model implies, wiki JJ Thompson as I'm quite sure that he came up with this theory.


Peace

negative -- directe at the OP. but to say "in over[his] head" is a regrettable thing to say: very nearly everybody, if not literally everybody, is in over their heads when talking about this stuff. But it's fascinating, you know, so whatcha gonna do.

Good thread overall, this.

I wouldn't be competent to evaluate your theor, but it is cool to hear new things and new ideas

[edit on 24-11-2008 by eniac]