Is the Big Bang Still Happening and Could It Lead to a Big Crunch?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter VernonNemitz
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Big Bang and whether it is still occurring, as well as the implications of such a scenario for the universe's mass and potential future states, including the possibility of a Big Crunch. Participants explore theoretical models, including the idea of a "naked singularity" and the geometry of the universe, while addressing the speculative nature of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a "naked singularity" could exist at the site of the Big Bang, potentially violating the Energy Conservation Law and implying that the Big Bang might still be happening in a distant part of the universe.
  • Another participant counters that the Big Bang occurred everywhere simultaneously, challenging the notion of a specific site for the event.
  • Some participants draw parallels between the initial post's ideas and the steady-state model of the universe, suggesting similarities with matter creation theories.
  • There is mention of Chaotic Inflation Theory as a possible interpretation of ongoing expansion, likening it to the idea of the Big Bang still occurring.
  • Concerns are raised about the speculative nature of the original claims, with some participants emphasizing the need to adhere to forum rules regarding speculation and personal theories.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the dimensionality of geometric shapes, with corrections on the definitions of circles, spheres, and their relevance to the discussion of the universe's structure.
  • One participant expresses frustration over the restrictions on speculative discussion, questioning how to engage with theoretical ideas without reaching conclusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the interpretation of the Big Bang's nature and the implications of a "naked singularity." While some find merit in the original post's ideas, others challenge them, leading to a lack of consensus on the validity of the claims presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the speculative nature of the discussion, highlighting that some ideas may not align with established scientific consensus. There are also corrections regarding mathematical and physical definitions that remain unresolved within the context of the discussion.

  • #31
VernonNemitz said:
Then all I can say is that comologists have always been using confusing terminology and analogies.
Their math may be precise, but their English descriptions of the fundamental concepts have
not been adequately clear (in the sense of "means exactly one thing").
Then learn the math.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
VernonNemitz said:
Then all I can say is that comologists have always been using confusing terminology and analogies.
Their math may be precise, but their English descriptions of the fundamental concepts have
not been adequately clear (in the sense of "means exactly one thing").

To expand a bit on Mordred's excellent comment, I would add that most pop science, whether in book form or TV shows, goes even farther than is probably needed in terms of dumbing down explanations.

IN PARTICULAR, you will hear even good scientists say directly, or at least imply, that the Big Bang singularity happened at a point in space, but if you read their books or listen to their lectures it is clear that they know perfectly well that such statements are nonsense.
 
  • #33
Then all I can say is that comologists have always been using confusing terminology and analogies.
Pop-science is usually misleading due to the need to dumb things down. The language you are being supplied here has been in use for something like a century so we are kind of stuck with it. Inventing a new language each time a student has trouble with the old one would just make matters worse.

If you want to live in Greece and understand Greeks you have to learn Greek - you can complain all you like about how hard it is to learn, how "illogical" it seems to you, but you still have to learn it. Some Greeks may also speak your language to some degree or even fluently so they may explain things to you but good translators are expensive... the free ones will have their own agendas so you will likely be mislead. You still have to use the Greek names for things that have been in use by the locals for generations.

Similarly, you want to live in the Physics world and understand physics then you have to learn the language of physics - which is called "mathematics". This will include labels, names for things, in a variety of languages that have been in use by the locals for generations. I know it's hard but there it is. If you rely on pop-science shows and dumbed down explanations, it's like using a cheap translator: you will get mislead.

English descriptions of the fundamental concepts have not been adequately clear (in the sense of "means exactly one thing").
If you expect English language words to mean exactly one thing you must be having a very hard time. There are no English words with only one meaning ... the more commonly used the more possible meanings. Even in a technical terminology, context has to play a role: there just are not enough words to go around all the things that need to be described.

This is a problem that has been around for as long as language has existed.
The terminologies that we use have been worked out to minimize the vagueness problem while allowing enough flexability for newcomers to be able to learn the field and for new discoveries to get added to the mix.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
12K