The Cyclic Universe: A Theory of Formation and Evolution

In summary: It helps to do the same sort of calculation in astrophysics. If you can get a "feel" for how much energy a star puts out, how big a star is, you quickly figure out that stars are tiny in comparison to the universe.Something that helps is to take an intro astronomy course and every time someone mentions a number, you draw it on a graph, so you get a sense of how big/small,... something is.In summary, the theory presented is plausible and has been proposed by others in the past. It is unknown if the universe will expand forever or if a super massive black hole will eventually merge with an anti-matter equivalent, producing massive energy.
  • #36
Calimero said:
Sure, right there in the tip of the pencil you are using to draw those vectors. But that is also true for any other point in space, it is purely coordinate choise. Any point in space can be equally considered as center of universe.

I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
voxilla said:
I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?

Exactly. Now take snapshot of the universe from Earth (you only need one because you can deduce velocity from the redshift). You will find out that all velocity vectors are pointing away from Earth, so you will conclude that Earth is the center of expansion. Now go at any distance you like, take snapshot again, and you will find out that your new place also looks like center of expansion. This is where balloon analogy comes to the rescue. Search these forums, there is plenty explanation about it.
 
  • #38
voxilla said:
I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?

You REALLY need to drop this belief that the "big bang" was an explosion, because that mistaken belief causes just the kind of confusion you now find yourself in.
 
  • #39
phinds said:
You REALLY need to drop this belief that the "big bang" was an explosion, because that mistaken belief causes just the kind of confusion you now find yourself in.

Please don't get angry, I more like the reasoning of Calimero.
 
  • #40
Calimero said:
Exactly. Now take snapshot of the universe from Earth (you only need one because you can deduce velocity from the redshift). You will find out that all velocity vectors are pointing away from Earth, so you will conclude that Earth is the center of expansion. Now go at any distance you like, take snapshot again, and you will find out that your new place also looks like center of expansion. This is where balloon analogy comes to the rescue. Search these forums, there is plenty explanation about it.

I know I annoy some people here, so you please just ignore my posts.

Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.
 
  • #41
voxilla said:
Well, a white dwarf can go supernova if you feed it enough, if you feed a black hole enough it might go big bang
Do you have any idea why a white dwarf explodes when it acquires too much mass? I'm guessing no, or else you'd realize that the mechanism at play here is not relevant -- at all -- to a black hole. In other words, it's not that a black hole "might" explode. It won't. One way to find this out is to learn about them. Unless you take the time to actually learn some astrophysics and cosmology, you are wasting your time as well as ours.
 
  • #42
voxilla said:
I know I annoy some people here, so you please just ignore my posts.

Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.

The problem is that those of who are here to learn physics and to help others learn physics DO get frustrated by someone who persists in refusing to acknowledge reality and persists in espousing a point of view that is demonstrably false.

Calimero took the point of view of being inside the universe because there IS no other point of view. There is NO "outside" to the universe. It does not have a center. It does not have an edge. It did not start at anyone place. Again, this is cosmology 101.

If you want to learn more, I recommend:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
 
  • #43
voxilla said:
Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.

Thats preciesly the point. There is no outside viewpoint for the Universe, not only that but most likely if not exactly euclidean flat and infinite then some sort of higher-n manifold like an n-sphere, with no real middle or edge - completely isotropic, the same as a flat universe.
 
  • #44
Cosmo Novice said:
Well for this you would require a background medium that existed prior to the Universe.

Please see the following link to help clear up your current confusion:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506992 [Broken]

You would need to invent new laws of physics for a black hole to explode - there are no known mechanisms for this, except a white hole which is merely a time reversal of a black hole and has never been observed in nature.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking, although I'm not comfortable with existing laws of physics, and my maths is poor. My imagination alone isn't going to make this happen, haha. I was thinking that a black hole singularity could be a lot like a neutron star except compressed beyond our understanding of it's limits. If in some way a black hole could have some sort of polar or charged nucleus instead of a singularity, and it merged with an opposite in some way, would it not disrupt and possibly eliminate both black holes resulting in energy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Matt Todd said:
This is along the lines of what I was thinking, although I'm not comfortable with existing laws of physics, and my maths is poor. My imagination alone isn't going to make this happen, haha. I was thinking that a black hole singularity could be a lot like a neutron star except compressed beyond our understanding of it's limits. If in some way a black hole could have some sort of polar or charged nucleus instead of a singularity, and it merged with an opposite in some way, would it not disrupt and possibly eliminate both black holes resulting in energy?

Black holes only have measurable spin, mass and angular momentum, they have no measurable charge.

We can speculate on anything past the event horizon - common opinion in the field is that the singularity is not likely to exist (A point of infinite density.) more likely our mathematics is flawed and we need a QG modification to GR to remove the mathematical artifact of the singularity.

If two black holes merge you end up with a single black hole of more mass.
 
  • #46
Thank you everyone for helping me attempt to get my head around this.
 
<h2>1. What is the cyclic universe theory?</h2><p>The cyclic universe theory proposes that the universe goes through an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, with each cycle lasting billions of years. This theory suggests that the universe has no beginning or end, and that it has been through an infinite number of cycles.</p><h2>2. How does the cyclic universe theory explain the formation of the universe?</h2><p>The cyclic universe theory suggests that the universe was formed through a process called "ekpyrotic scenario". This scenario involves two parallel branes (higher-dimensional objects) colliding and releasing a tremendous amount of energy, which then expands and cools to form the universe.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the cyclic universe theory?</h2><p>One of the main pieces of evidence for the cyclic universe theory is the observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which is believed to be leftover energy from the Big Bang. This radiation shows a pattern that is consistent with the idea of a cyclical universe. Additionally, recent studies have found that the expansion of the universe may be slowing down, which could support the idea of a cyclical universe.</p><h2>4. What are the implications of the cyclic universe theory?</h2><p>If the cyclic universe theory is correct, it would mean that our universe has been through an infinite number of cycles and will continue to do so in the future. This could have implications for the concept of time and the idea of a beginning or end to the universe. It could also potentially explain the existence of multiple universes and the concept of parallel universes.</p><h2>5. Is the cyclic universe theory widely accepted by the scientific community?</h2><p>The cyclic universe theory is still a topic of debate and research in the scientific community. While some scientists support this theory, others have proposed alternative theories such as the Big Bang theory. More research and evidence are needed to fully understand and validate the cyclic universe theory.</p>

1. What is the cyclic universe theory?

The cyclic universe theory proposes that the universe goes through an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, with each cycle lasting billions of years. This theory suggests that the universe has no beginning or end, and that it has been through an infinite number of cycles.

2. How does the cyclic universe theory explain the formation of the universe?

The cyclic universe theory suggests that the universe was formed through a process called "ekpyrotic scenario". This scenario involves two parallel branes (higher-dimensional objects) colliding and releasing a tremendous amount of energy, which then expands and cools to form the universe.

3. What evidence supports the cyclic universe theory?

One of the main pieces of evidence for the cyclic universe theory is the observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which is believed to be leftover energy from the Big Bang. This radiation shows a pattern that is consistent with the idea of a cyclical universe. Additionally, recent studies have found that the expansion of the universe may be slowing down, which could support the idea of a cyclical universe.

4. What are the implications of the cyclic universe theory?

If the cyclic universe theory is correct, it would mean that our universe has been through an infinite number of cycles and will continue to do so in the future. This could have implications for the concept of time and the idea of a beginning or end to the universe. It could also potentially explain the existence of multiple universes and the concept of parallel universes.

5. Is the cyclic universe theory widely accepted by the scientific community?

The cyclic universe theory is still a topic of debate and research in the scientific community. While some scientists support this theory, others have proposed alternative theories such as the Big Bang theory. More research and evidence are needed to fully understand and validate the cyclic universe theory.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
732
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top