- #1
Laotzi
- 3
- 0
Hi physicsforum members,
I am currently in a discussion with a fellow traveler on the chances of a Big Crunch. To my knowledge, it's a long shot. But to him it is the accepted mainstream view on the "ends" of the universe.
Before I get to my question, I have to provide some back story (I will be quoting from his hypotheses and proofs):
I'm just a lowly anthropolgy major, he a philosophy major, so I am looking for people who are more qualified to speak on the issue. Is he as massively mistaken (and bordering on crank-ism) as I think he is? If you can, please use citations and maths. This isn't necessary. But I want to have a firm grasp of the issue before I continue mine and his discussion.
I am currently in a discussion with a fellow traveler on the chances of a Big Crunch. To my knowledge, it's a long shot. But to him it is the accepted mainstream view on the "ends" of the universe.
Before I get to my question, I have to provide some back story (I will be quoting from his hypotheses and proofs):
He seems to think this other 73% of dark energy will cool (although now he has moved away from "cooling" but still thinks this dark energy will convert into matter causing a big crunch. I told him this is a correlation/causation fallacy, but he just won't give it up.Hypothesis: Dark Energy is being converted to Dark Matter at one of three rates.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no Dark Matter.
Fact: At the moment of the Big Bang, there was at least 96% Dark Energy.
Fact: At 13.73 billion years, the Universe is 73% Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, and 4% Ordinary Matter.
This is another conclusion of his, that he says was confirmed by the WMAP. But from what I know, and my research on the WMAP, this is not the case.The universe, by Hawking's model which answers all the contradictions, is boundless yet finite. And it does have a very nice center, the near-infinite singularity
This is a further argument of his on the creation of matter from dark energy.Final Conclusion: All (or nearly all) of the Dark Energy will be converted into Dark Matter in between 26 and 82 billion years. Logic suggests 25.9, though observation suggests 45.6.
I'm just a lowly anthropolgy major, he a philosophy major, so I am looking for people who are more qualified to speak on the issue. Is he as massively mistaken (and bordering on crank-ism) as I think he is? If you can, please use citations and maths. This isn't necessary. But I want to have a firm grasp of the issue before I continue mine and his discussion.