The Everlasting Cycle of the Universe

[Oh the irony]

Alright. So I have an idea, and I'm not sure if it has been thought up yet.

So, We all know what the Big Bang is. I'm going to assume that you've heard of the big "Crunch", I believe it was called.


Well, What if when the Universe comes together, or "crunch's" a big bang happens. All of the Universes energy all in one place HAS to cause something. So, maybe just maybe the Universe has been around FOREVER as in it is infinite, but as we know infinity cancels out infinity, although if I'm correct and the Universe "recycles" itself, the infinite amount of possible things couldn't of happened, if you understand where I'm going with this. So, when all that energy is together a big bang occurs thus seeding space with the Universe once more in an everlasting chain.


SO, Maybe the Universe recycles itself, for lack of a better term.

 

[Superstring]

The "big rip" and the "big chill" are more plausible ends to the universe due to the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating. So that theory is probably wrong either way.

 

[DaveC426913]

SO, Maybe the Universe recycles itself, for lack of a better term.

Google "cyclic model" or "oscillatory universe" or "Big Bounce" .

Also, try to make your subject lines descriptive.

 

[Agent M27]

I would have to agree with Superstring. Based on currently available data and knowledge, the Universe will most definitely end in either a "Big Rip" or "Big Chill". I happen to believe it will be more in line with the chill idea, although I don't know if that would conflict with a few basic laws of thermodynamics. Would it conflict with any laws being that when they say freeze they imply the temperate of the Universe will approach 0 Kelvin and at 0 Kelvin atomic motions cease? Thanks.

Joe

 

[DaveC426913]

Would it conflict with any laws being that when they say freeze they imply the temperate of the Universe will approach 0 Kelvin and at 0 Kelvin atomic motions cease?

No. It will approach zero only because the volume measured will approach infinity, meaning each atom will be a correspondingly large distance from each other. But no matter how far each atom gets from each other, they will still retain their individual kinetic energy.

 

[Chimps]

The "big rip" and the "big chill" are more plausible ends to the universe due to the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating. So that theory is probably wrong either way.

I'm not convinced that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I believe there may be another explanation for that observation, although I am unable to offer a working mathematical model at this time.

 

[graybass]

I'm not convinced that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I believe there may be another explanation for that observation, although I am unable to offer a working mathematical model at this time.

That's a big statement there! I'd love to believe in the Recurring Universe Theory. There just is so much science saying otherwise.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not convinced that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I believe there may be another explanation for that observation, although I am unable to offer a working mathematical model at this time.

Here's the thing: if your hypothesis is not based on a mathematical model, then what is it based on? Presumably it's based on a conceptual model that comes from an analogy to other physics where you've seen superficially similar behaviour.


But the universe is unique. How can you extrapolate from known physics? There is no comparison.

 

[bapowell]

I don't see why people think the universe will "plausibly" or "definitely" do anything in the future. All we know is that the universe appears to be accelerating, and that w < 0 seems to fit the data. As to what the time variation of w is, nobody knows. Cosmological constant? Maybe. A return to a matter dominated universe at some point in the future? Sure, why not? As far as the big rip (w < -1) goes, I'd say this is much less plausible than a big crunch if you consider the fact that any quantum theory with this kind of stress-energy is terribly sick.

As to the original question of cyclic universes, yes, you should certainly look into "cyclic" or "oscillating" universe models. The original oscillating universe was the idea of a guy named R. Tolman in the 30's, however, his model needed to have cycles of ever increasing duration, and so was not truly cyclic or eternal. Since then, people have dreamed up all sorts of ways to remedy this, often at the expense of extremely fine-tuned and/or utterly repugnant modifications to the physics. So, it looks like you were scooped around 80 years ago, but it's quite an idea to have come up with!

 

[Chimps]

Here's the thing: if your hypothesis is not based on a mathematical model, then what is it based on? Presumably it's based on a conceptual model that comes from an analogy to other physics where you've seen superficially similar behaviour.


But the universe is unique. How can you extrapolate from known physics? There is no comparison.

It is indeed based on a conceptual model with a solid grounding.

I don't have to accept the most popular theory just because it is the most advanced theory there is so far. I reject it for mathematical reasons because in my opinion it is flawed. That doesn't mean I have to offer an equally advanced theory to justify my opinion.

 

[bapowell]

It is indeed based on a conceptual model with a solid grounding.

I don't have to accept the most popular theory just because it is the most advanced theory there is so far. I reject it for mathematical reasons because in my opinion it is flawed. That doesn't mean I have to offer an equally advanced theory to justify my opinion.

No, but it would help if you could point out exactly what bothers you mathematically with the concordance model.

 

[Chimps]

No, but it would help if you could point out exactly what bothers you mathematically with the concordance model.

Well, it's a fudge.

It's all the wrong way round. A bit of dark energy here and a bit of dark matter there and oh look we have wonderful model explaining our best data. Mathematically, it's fine as long as you accept that it's a fudge, so I don't have a problem with it mathematically as such, but that's because the mathematics is fudged to fit the model.

 

[bapowell]

Well, it's a fudge.

It's all the wrong way round. A bit of dark energy here and a bit of dark matter there and oh look we have wonderful model explaining our best data. Mathematically, it's fine as long as you accept that it's a fudge, so I don't have a problem with it mathematically as such, but that's because the mathematics is fudged to fit the model.

OK, but you initially objected to the fact that the universe was accelerating. You didn't object to the theoretical explanation of this phenomenology, as you are now. The universe is observed to be accelerating, regardless of how we choose to account for this acceleration in our theories. I agree that a better understanding of dark energy is needed, but I don't dispute that $$\ddot{a} > 0$$. As for dark matter, that is not a fudge. You should read more about that subject. Cold thermal relics of just the right mass and properties to fit current observations are readily found in models of the early universe.

 

[Chimps]

You might say I was objecting to the acceleration but I actually said I was not convinced, which I think is a healthy position.

As for dark matter, I am constantly interested in new developments. Thanks for the suggestion that I should read more about it - I intend to. And I hope you do as well.