Why no 'Big Crunch' a femtosecond after Big Bang ?

  • Thread starter fastartcee
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Big bang
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of the "Big Crunch" and why it did not occur immediately after the Big Bang. Despite the large mass of the early Universe, it continued to expand faster than gravity could catch up. The idea of a "kick" from the Big Bang is mentioned, but the exact cause of this initial expansion remains unknown.
  • #1
fastartcee
5
0
Why no 'Big Crunch' a femtosecond after "Big Bang"?

When the Universe was the size of a grapefruit, with the mass of 100 billion galaxies (actually, 20 times that mass, I suppose, given dark matter and dark energy), why did it not instantly suffer gravitational collapse into a megamega black hole?

After all, nothing (except Hawking radiation?) escapes from a puny black hole with the mass of only 100 million Suns or so.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
The most honest answer is that is just not what the equations of cosmology predict will happen.

If you want to rationalize it, perhaps say that in the beginning the universe was expandind faster than gravity could catch up ( expansion has unlimited "velocity", gravity goes the speed of light).
 
  • #3
fastartcee said:
When the Universe was the size of a grapefruit, with the mass of 100 billion galaxies (actually, 20 times that mass, I suppose, given dark matter and dark energy), why did it not instantly suffer gravitational collapse into a megamega black hole?

You can think of the Big Bang as a "kick" of sorts. In the classical approximation, the answer is that the universe had enough kinetic energy to keep expanding, despite the force of gravity. That's not entirely correct in the general relativistic way of looking at things, but the idea is the same.

As to how it got that initial kick, nobody knows. If the big bang theory is true, then we may never know.
 

1. Why was the Big Crunch theory initially proposed?

The Big Crunch theory was initially proposed as a possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe. It suggested that the expansion of the universe, which was observed through the redshift of galaxies, would eventually slow down and reverse, causing all matter and energy to collapse back into a singularity.

2. What evidence has been found to contradict the Big Crunch theory?

Several pieces of evidence have been found to contradict the Big Crunch theory. One of the most significant is the observation of the accelerated expansion of the universe, which was discovered in the late 1990s. This acceleration suggests that the expansion of the universe will continue indefinitely, rather than slowing down and reversing.

3. Could the Big Crunch theory still be possible?

While the Big Crunch theory is no longer considered a likely scenario for the fate of the universe, it is still possible that it could happen under certain conditions. For example, if the amount of dark energy in the universe were to decrease significantly, it could cause the expansion to slow down and eventually reverse.

4. What would have happened if the Big Crunch had occurred?

If the Big Crunch had occurred, the universe would have collapsed into a singularity, similar to the state of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang. This would have resulted in a high-density, high-temperature state, potentially leading to another cycle of expansion and contraction.

5. What is the current leading theory for the fate of the universe?

The current leading theory for the fate of the universe is the "heat death" scenario, also known as the Big Freeze. This theory suggests that the expansion of the universe will continue indefinitely, eventually leading to a state of maximum entropy where all matter and energy are spread out and no longer able to sustain life or any other processes.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
876
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
56
Views
6K
Replies
49
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top