Will the Universe End in a Big Crunch?

  • Thread starter jacksdvds
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Universe
In summary: While black holes do have inescapable gravity, it is incorrect to say that the strongest influential galaxy will absorb all other matter in the universe. This is because the universe is constantly expanding, and the farther away an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. So, while a galaxy may have a strong gravitational pull within its own cluster, it does not have enough power to pull in matter from outside of its cluster. Therefore, the idea that a single black hole will absorb all matter in the universe is a supposition and not supported by current scientific understanding.In summary, the conversation discusses the accepted hypothesis of today's science that explains the creation and evolution of the universe. It begins with the Big Bang and
  • #1
jacksdvds
6
0
If the following deductions are correct:
Why the Universe Can Never Die!

(Using the accepted hypothesis of today’s science as basis)
1. Everything was created at the time of the Big Bang. Matter was disintegrated and expanded as exploding atomic particles
2. This Matter was accelerated outward
3. Different Elements began to form as nuclei, electrons and protons began to coalesce
4. Gases, dust were attracted by gravity and formed into Nebulae
5. Nebulae coalesced into Galaxies
6. Galaxies gave birth to Stars and solar systems
7 Stars ignited due to compression of gravity and ignited the Hydrogen at core into fusion reactor
8. Stars exhausted their fuel of Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen and lighter elements turning the matter into heavy metals
9. Star begins to grow into a giant Nova , swells engulfing nearer planets
10. Star collapses into Nova and explodes leaving a Black hole
11. Black hole begins to devour entire solar system
12. Lesser systems migrated to black holes devouring those systems, black holes and other matter/energy
13. Central galactic black hole’s gravity coalesces entire galactic system
14. Black holes combine in galactic center compressing captured matter further.
15. Galaxies begin to attract each other, coalesce and are swallowed in universe central singularity black hole
16. Matter and energy exceeds the hole’s gravity ability to contain
17. The Singularity Black Hole absorbs itself and re-explodes creating another big bang, disintegrating all captured elements into basic atomic particles.

Compiled by
Jack Lewis
2/26/2012
jacksdvds
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
jacksdvds said:
If the following deductions are correct:
Why the Universe Can Never Die!

(Using the accepted hypothesis of today’s science as basis)
1. Everything was created at the time of the Big Bang. Matter was disintegrated and expanded as exploding atomic particles
2. This Matter was accelerated outward
3. Different Elements began to form as nuclei, electrons and protons began to coalesce
4. Gases, dust were attracted by gravity and formed into Nebulae
5. Nebulae coalesced into Galaxies
6. Galaxies gave birth to Stars and solar systems
7 Stars ignited due to compression of gravity and ignited the Hydrogen at core into fusion reactor
8. Stars exhausted their fuel of Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen and lighter elements turning the matter into heavy metals
9. Star begins to grow into a giant Nova , swells engulfing nearer planets
10. Star collapses into Nova and explodes leaving a Black hole
11. Black hole begins to devour entire solar system
12. Lesser systems migrated to black holes devouring those systems, black holes and other matter/energy
13. Central galactic black hole’s gravity coalesces entire galactic system
14. Black holes combine in galactic center compressing captured matter further.
15. Galaxies begin to attract each other, coalesce and are swallowed in universe central singularity black hole
16. Matter and energy exceeds the hole’s gravity ability to contain
17. The Singularity Black Hole absorbs itself and re-explodes creating another big bang, disintegrating all captured elements into basic atomic particles.

Compiled by
Jack Lewis
2/26/2012
jacksdvds


Points 1 through 10 are approximately correct, 11 through 17 are simply wrong.
 
  • #3
alexg said:
Points 1 through 10 are approximately correct, 11 through 17 are simply wrong.

Point 2 is wrong, the big bang wasn't an explosion in space as the poster seems to think.

11 to 14 are roughly right, and in the heat death scenario, the first half of 15 could apply to clusters but of course the second half is wrong, there is no centre. Item 16 is the biggest error though, there is no upper limit to a black hole's mass.
 
  • #4
GeorgeDishman said:
Point 2 is wrong, the big bang wasn't an explosion in space as the poster seems to think.

11 to 14 are roughly right, and in the heat death scenario, the first half of 15 could apply to clusters but of course the second half is wrong, there is no centre. Item 16 is the biggest error though, there is no upper limit to a black hole's mass.

In 11 it says that the black hole will devour its solar system. A black hole with a similar mass to the original star would have the same effect on its orbiting bodies as the star would have had. There's no mechanism for the orbiting bodies to be "devoured".
 
  • #5
1-2 The big bang has been described as a singularity exploding from at that time, the center of the universe.
15 It has been photographed, the galaxies colliding and combining.
In the parameters known or theorized today the center of galaxies are black holes.
Black holes consist of inescapable gravity.
Given time the strongest influencial galaxy will absorb the balance of a collapsing universe.
Granted, Item 16 should have been labeled a supposition.
 
  • #6
Also realize that current observations show the universe will continue to expand forever, rendering anything other than galaxy clusters and their associated galaxies unable to be stay bound to each other, so no black holes would coalesce to form one giant universal one.
 
  • #7
There is also the theory that eventually the universe will cease to expand and collapse. It probably won't happen before I get my apocalypse shelter finished.
 
  • #8
jacksdvds said:
1-2 The big bang has been described as a singularity exploding from at that time, the center of the universe.

Simply because some people describe it as such does not make it so. It is incorrect to think of the BB as an event taking place in a fixed background or anything like that (this goes along with the fact that there is no center of the universe, a topic covered many times on this forum). Indeed, it is speculative at all to describe things that happened before roughly the Planck time. All we can say with (scientific) certainty, is that the universe was much smaller and denser in the past.


15 It has been photographed, the galaxies colliding and combining.
In the parameters known or theorized today the center of galaxies are black holes.

True, some galaxies do collide and combine. However, these are only galaxies which are relatively close together -- ones which are farther away will never collide. And yes, current understanding indicates most (if not all) galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centers.

Black holes consist of inescapable gravity.
Given time the strongest influencial galaxy will absorb the balance of a collapsing universe.
Granted, Item 16 should have been labeled a supposition.

This is false. Far away, the gravity of a black hole is no different from that of any other object. That is to say, if the Sun were to, through some magical process, collapse into a black hole, the Earth's orbit would be unaffected. So while it's true that isolated massive stars will form black holes, they will in no way 'devour everything in the universe'.

With re. to your item 16, there is no such limit on the mass of a black hole. It's not like they are buckets of some finite size, beyond which things start to fill out. Rather, they are regions in spacetime that are causally disconnected from the outside universe due to extreme gravitational curvature.

Once these points are understood, I think it becomes more obvious why your final point is nonsense.

Re: A cyclical universe theory, it is theoretically possible for a universe to expand and re-collapse, creating a so-called 'big crunch'. However, observationally it appears as if we do not live in such a universe, as ours will continue expanding forever.
 
  • #9
SHISHKABOB said:
In 11 it says that the black hole will devour its solar system. A black hole with a similar mass to the original star would have the same effect on its orbiting bodies as the star would have had. There's no mechanism for the orbiting bodies to be "devoured".

The mechanism is gravitational radiation, see Hulse and Taylor's observations of PSR_B1913+B16 for which they won the Nobel Prize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16
 
  • #10
jacksdvds said:
1-2 The big bang has been described as a singularity exploding from at that time, the center of the universe.

Unfortunately, many descriptions are poorly written. It is a singularity in the same sense that the equation y=1/x has a singularity at x=0 but it isn't a centre, the singularity occurs everywhere. The portion of the universe we can see has a centre of course, it's us, but an alien civilisation living 40 billion light years away could say the same.

15 It has been photographed, the galaxies colliding and combining.

True, and on this map you can see our galaxy as well as Andromeda, we will collide in about 3 billion years:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/localgr.html

In fact all of the galaxies on that map might end up coalescing. However, zoom out one level to the larger structure:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/virgo.html

On that map, the Eridanus and Formax Clusters might each merge and possibly merge with each other but they will never join with the Virgo Cluster, those two groupings are too far apart. They are separating at an ever increasing rate.

Zoom out one more and the pattern of fluff you see is typical of the whole universe, and those patches are certainly never going to join up.

Granted, Item 16 should have been labeled a supposition.

No, it's just plain wrong. Black holes cannot explode but they are thought evaporate through Hawking radiation which is thermal. In other words all the mass gets converted into heat and light which then gets redshifted to nothing ... The End.
 
  • #11
GeorgeDishman said:
The mechanism is gravitational radiation, see Hulse and Taylor's observations of PSR_B1913+B16 for which they won the Nobel Prize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16

The quoted study is of a Pulsar, not a Black Hole
 
  • #12
alexg said:
The quoted study is of a Pulsar, not a Black Hole

The study shows a binary system whose orbits are decaying because energy is being radiated away (probably) in the form of gravitational waves. That applies to any orbiting configuration, though the energy loss by the Earth orbiting the Sun for example is at a much lower rate. Given enough time, all the stars in our galaxy will either merge with Sag A* or by ejected from the galaxy if random encounters push their speed above escape velocity (i.e. as in "evaporation" from a globular cluster due to the statistical nature of the virial theorem).
 
  • #13
jacksdvds said:
If the following deductions are correct:
Why the Universe Can Never Die!

(Using the accepted hypothesis of today’s science as basis)
1. Everything was created at the time of the Big Bang. Matter was disintegrated and expanded as exploding atomic particles
2. This Matter was accelerated outward
3. Different Elements began to form as nuclei, electrons and protons began to coalesce
4. Gases, dust were attracted by gravity and formed into Nebulae
5. Nebulae coalesced into Galaxies
6. Galaxies gave birth to Stars and solar systems
7 Stars ignited due to compression of gravity and ignited the Hydrogen at core into fusion reactor
8. Stars exhausted their fuel of Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen and lighter elements turning the matter into heavy metals
9. Star begins to grow into a giant Nova , swells engulfing nearer planets
10. Star collapses into Nova and explodes leaving a Black hole
11. Black hole begins to devour entire solar system
12. Lesser systems migrated to black holes devouring those systems, black holes and other matter/energy
13. Central galactic black hole’s gravity coalesces entire galactic system
14. Black holes combine in galactic center compressing captured matter further.
15. Galaxies begin to attract each other, coalesce and are swallowed in universe central singularity black hole
16. Matter and energy exceeds the hole’s gravity ability to contain
17. The Singularity Black Hole absorbs itself and re-explodes creating another big bang, disintegrating all captured elements into basic atomic particles.

Compiled by
Jack Lewis
2/26/2012
jacksdvds
This is what the science says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
 
  • #14
GeorgeDishman said:
The mechanism is gravitational radiation, see Hulse and Taylor's observations of PSR_B1913+B16 for which they won the Nobel Prize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16

While this is true, the timescale for inspiral of planetary bodies orbiting ~solar mass black holes is ridiculously long. Planets will likely be ejected through normal Newtonian gravitational and tidal interactions long before the gravitational radiation has a chance to shrink their orbits down to zero. For example, the lifetime of the Earth's orbit owing only to gravitational radiation is 10^23 years.
 
  • #15
i like it jack.

Is there current evidence that black holes evaporate? I was too lazy too click on the Hawking radiation wiki link.
 
  • #16
sahmgeek said:
i like it jack.

Is there current evidence that black holes evaporate? I was too lazy too click on the Hawking radiation wiki link.

You expect someone to take the effort to answer your post when you don't make the effort to read the available information? Cmon...
 
  • #17
thanks for taking the effort to respond to my post. i will now make the effort to read it. "yes" or "no" would have saved you some energy, but i get your point.
 
  • #18
Nabeshin said:
While this is true, the timescale for inspiral of planetary bodies orbiting ~solar mass black holes is ridiculously long. Planets will likely be ejected through normal Newtonian gravitational and tidal interactions long before the gravitational radiation has a chance to shrink their orbits down to zero. For example, the lifetime of the Earth's orbit owing only to gravitational radiation is 10^23 years.

As I said, some will be ejected from the galaxy but those that aren't will eventually become part of Sag A*. Item 13 on the list is valid, nobody said it would be quick.

Stars that are ejected from the galaxy will quantum tunnel to iron stars in perhaps 10^1500 years and to black holes in 10^(10^26) years or more after which Hawking Radiation is again their fate so 10^23 years is the proverbial blink of an eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Matter_decays_into_iron

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html
 
  • #19
GeorgeDishman said:
As I said, some will be ejected from the galaxy but those that aren't will eventually become part of Sag A*. Item 13 on the list is valid, nobody said it would be quick.

Stars that are ejected from the galaxy will quantum tunnel to iron stars in perhaps 10^1500 years and to black holes in 10^(10^26) years or more after which Hawking Radiation is again their fate so 10^23 years is the proverbial blink of an eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Matter_decays_into_iron

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html

Unless Hawking radiation is real, in which even supermassive black holes will decay in about 2x10^99 years.

Also, per wiki: Since encounters are more frequent in the denser galaxy, the process then accelerates. The end result is that most objects are ejected from the galaxy, leaving a small fraction (perhaps 1% to 10%) which fall into the central supermassive black hole.

So no, number 13 is not accurate, as much of the galaxy will be thrown out, not sucked into the black hole.
 
  • #20
Drakkith said:
Unless Hawking radiation is real, in which even supermassive black holes will decay in about 2x10^99 years.
Hawking radiation is real. It is a feature that any horizon must have, and has been observed for those horizons which we can create in laboratories (sound horizons).
 
  • #21
Drakkith said:
.. after which Hawking Radiation is again their fate ..
Unless Hawking radiation is real, ...

Yep, I said that.

Also, per wiki: Since encounters are more frequent in the denser galaxy, the process then accelerates. The end result is that most objects are ejected from the galaxy, leaving a small fraction (perhaps 1% to 10%) which fall into the central supermassive black hole.

So no, number 13 is not accurate, as much of the galaxy will be thrown out, not sucked into the black hole.

1% to 10% is still 3 to 30 billion stars, or 1000 to 10,000 times its present mass, and that ignores dark matter. We can nitpick estimates but compared to the other items on the list, IMHO it is not that far out. YMMV.
 
  • #22
GeorgeDishman said:
Stars that are ejected from the galaxy will quantum tunnel to iron stars in perhaps 10^1500 years and to black holes in 10^(10^26) years or more after which Hawking Radiation is again their fate so 10^23 years is the proverbial blink of an eye.
Proton decay is likely to get rid of most matter long before this.
 
  • #23
GeorgeDishman said:
Yep, I said that.



1% to 10% is still 3 to 30 billion stars, or 1000 to 10,000 times its present mass, and that ignores dark matter. We can nitpick estimates but compared to the other items on the list, IMHO it is not that far out. YMMV.

So 90-99% incorrect is "nitpicking"? Ok. We'll agree to disagree.
 
  • #24
Chalnoth said:
Hawking radiation is real. It is a feature that any horizon must have, and has been observed for those horizons which we can create in laboratories (sound horizons).

It is theoretically real but for obvious reasons has not been observed in nature. You cannot qualify this statement as fact and you should not present it as such. Hawking radiation is a prediction of prevailing theory.

Sound horizons are an entirely different thing.
 
  • #25
Chalnoth said:
Proton decay is likely to get rid of most matter long before this.

This statement can also not be qualified - proton decay is a hypothetical scenario and has never been observed due to its nature.
 
  • #26
Drakkith said:
So 90-99% incorrect is "nitpicking"? Ok. We'll agree to disagree.

What I meant is that we agree that some is ejected and some falls to the centre, it is a question of degree, whereas other points on his list were simply wrong. I'm not really disagreeing with you.
 
  • #27
Cosmo Novice said:
Sound horizons are an entirely different thing.
They're really not. The only difference is there is a horizon in sound waves as opposed to light waves. In either case, the horizon produces radiation just because it is a horizon. The exact same mathematical argument leads to radiation in either situation. So the observation of this radiation on a sound horizon is an observation of Hawking radiation.
 
  • #28
Cosmo Novice said:
This statement can also not be qualified - proton decay is a hypothetical scenario and has never been observed due to its nature.
Except protons were produced in the early universe. This fact alone proves that proton decay must occur.
 
  • #29
Just because we can't see it doesn't mean there is not a speed faster than light!
 
  • #30
jacksdvds said:
Just because we can't see it doesn't mean there is not a speed faster than light!
Objects that move faster than light would cause the universe to be unstable. That is, reality would explode. That doesn't happen, so it's pretty clear that nothing is likely to ever move faster than light.
 
  • #31
And you know this how?
 
  • #32
jacksdvds said:
And you know this how?
Anything that moves faster than light emits radiation. If it's a charged particle, it emits Cherenkov radiation. This is observed, for example, when high-energy particles move through mediums faster than the speed of light in those mediums. If it uncharged, there are other, similar processes (they're slower, but still occur). So not only would anything moving faster than light be very much observable, it would rapidly cease to move faster than light as it loses energy.

That, or it's a tachyon, in which case the extra emission will just cause it to gain speed and emit more radiation, which would cause the universe to explode. As I mentioned.
 
  • #33
jacksdvds said:
Just because we can't see it doesn't mean there is not a speed faster than light!

I always wondered if there was nothing faster than light then why do we have black holes? What does it mean need an escape velocity faster than light?
 
  • #34
bill alsept said:
I always wondered if there was nothing faster than light then why do we have black holes? What does it mean need an escape velocity faster than light?

It means once you check in, you don't get out.
 
  • #35
Chalnoth said:
Anything that moves faster than light emits radiation. If it's a charged particle, it emits Cherenkov radiation. This is observed, for example, when high-energy particles move through mediums faster than the speed of light in those mediums. If it uncharged, there are other, similar processes (they're slower, but still occur). So not only would anything moving faster than light be very much observable, it would rapidly cease to move faster than light as it loses energy.

That, or it's a tachyon, in which case the extra emission will just cause it to gain speed and emit more radiation, which would cause the universe to explode. As I mentioned.

Hence, it has been observed "when energy particles move through mediums faster that the speed of light", supposes that there is a speed FTL. Your very words!

Secondly, energy moving through a medium, perhaps a flash light beam through a fish tank, the speed of the light beam on the emerging beam would then be slower than light speed due to the lost energy. Now we have a second argument and a second speed of light.

It strike me as though you are arguing both sides of the issue. Correct me if I mistook your words.
 
<h2>1. Will the Big Crunch theory actually happen?</h2><p>The Big Crunch theory is just one of many possible scenarios for the end of the universe. While it is a plausible explanation based on current scientific understanding, it is not certain that it will actually occur. Other theories, such as the Big Freeze or the Big Rip, are also being considered.</p><h2>2. What evidence supports the Big Crunch theory?</h2><p>One of the main pieces of evidence for the Big Crunch theory is the observation that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. This suggests that the gravitational pull of all matter in the universe will eventually cause it to collapse back in on itself. Additionally, the abundance of dark matter in the universe also supports this theory.</p><h2>3. How long until the Big Crunch happens?</h2><p>The exact timeline for the Big Crunch is uncertain, as it depends on the rate of expansion and the amount of matter in the universe. Some estimates suggest it could happen in billions of years, while others predict trillions of years. However, it is important to note that the universe is constantly changing and new discoveries may alter these predictions.</p><h2>4. What would happen to us if the Big Crunch occurs?</h2><p>If the Big Crunch does happen, it would result in the end of the universe as we know it. All matter and energy would be compressed into a single point, known as a singularity. It is impossible to predict what would happen to us at that point, as our current understanding of physics breaks down in such extreme conditions.</p><h2>5. Is there any way to prevent the Big Crunch?</h2><p>There is currently no known way to prevent the Big Crunch from happening. The laws of physics dictate that the universe will continue to expand and eventually collapse back in on itself. However, it is always possible that new scientific discoveries or advancements could change our understanding of the universe and potentially alter this outcome.</p>

1. Will the Big Crunch theory actually happen?

The Big Crunch theory is just one of many possible scenarios for the end of the universe. While it is a plausible explanation based on current scientific understanding, it is not certain that it will actually occur. Other theories, such as the Big Freeze or the Big Rip, are also being considered.

2. What evidence supports the Big Crunch theory?

One of the main pieces of evidence for the Big Crunch theory is the observation that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. This suggests that the gravitational pull of all matter in the universe will eventually cause it to collapse back in on itself. Additionally, the abundance of dark matter in the universe also supports this theory.

3. How long until the Big Crunch happens?

The exact timeline for the Big Crunch is uncertain, as it depends on the rate of expansion and the amount of matter in the universe. Some estimates suggest it could happen in billions of years, while others predict trillions of years. However, it is important to note that the universe is constantly changing and new discoveries may alter these predictions.

4. What would happen to us if the Big Crunch occurs?

If the Big Crunch does happen, it would result in the end of the universe as we know it. All matter and energy would be compressed into a single point, known as a singularity. It is impossible to predict what would happen to us at that point, as our current understanding of physics breaks down in such extreme conditions.

5. Is there any way to prevent the Big Crunch?

There is currently no known way to prevent the Big Crunch from happening. The laws of physics dictate that the universe will continue to expand and eventually collapse back in on itself. However, it is always possible that new scientific discoveries or advancements could change our understanding of the universe and potentially alter this outcome.

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
984
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
996
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Back
Top