What is more logical, the reason for everything is a quirk of nature that 0= some tiny energy.?
Well, dark energy and dark matter are separate things. And among the two, we know more about the latter. And also, I don't think 0= tiny speck of energy. It seems illogical to me.
They could simply be 2 formats of the same thing, or not exist as permanent items at all.
. What is documented shows the *origin processes* changed greatly, and slowed down dramatically since the early universe. This points to an expanding universe that is running down hill, not up hill and entropy working more and more disorder and eventual heat death. Folks can believe in a cyclical universe to avoid perhaps unpleasant philosophical implications of a universe with a distinct beginning and universe that is winding down. However, it is not *settled science* and lacks rigorous observational testing presently to confirm such a view of the universe.
Right, but don't confuse the Cyclical Universe idea with the old Static Universe where new things keep forming in an ageless universe. A cyclical universe would need to eventually collapse, which allows the next one to form, though I assume there is no hard science for this since falsifiability is a requirement for a scientific model.Astronomy does not observe new quasars forming, new galaxies forming, new globular clusters forming, new SMBH forming or even, new PBH forming
Yep, stars poop out, and there is less and less hydrogen for new ones. The universe is aging, and the entropy increase describes the "take down", no doubt.
I suspect it has no real objective testing.
Right. The big difference between faith and science is whether or not those interpretations are objective, where essentially multiple testings of any given hypothesis can be conducted by multiple experts to add confidence to any given interpretation another has given for the claim. The claims can also be "in principle", which is why Einstein enjoyed using "gedanken experiments" (thought experiments).
Yes, and what constitutes "correct interpretations" are the ones that are objective-based, not merely those based on subjective reasoning. Of course, great science often comes from great ideas that are simply subjective to begin with, but the ideas may or may not produce the falsifiability every theory needs.
Here is an interesting thought and simple reason the universe collapses.
If the understanding of the reality is not correct then how to measure it against reality?
I suggest that there is *no real objective testing* supporting the cyclical universe view and none has been presented in this thread.
But there are regions (closer ones) we can observe that are already moving away from us > C.
GR demonstrates that any one point can be treated as not moving. So from many outer regions were moving faster than C.
It's held that Dark Energy is gaining the upper hand over gravity as the density of the universe decreases with time. So, it will continue to accelerate and not stop.
DE must be turned off first. We don't know enough about DE to have a clue if it will change in behavior in the future. The CMBR z value was once 0, ~ 1100 now, and with accelerated expansion it will continue to increase at a faster rate than before.
That's a safe bet.Interesting observational test for the cyclical universe view
Good questions. If DE were to reverse somehow, or lose its repulsive nature then the gravity might be enough to cause a full collapse? But would space itself fall with it? Who knows. DE is a major mystery. Einstein had snuck it into his equations (Cosmological Constant) once he saw that gravity would collapse our universe without it, but his value was much, much smaller than what we need today for an accelerating universe.
My first point, to both Cat and dfjchem, is that, if gravity is really so powerful, then this heat death theory is completely nullified. According to the heat death theory, after a googol years, or 10 to the power 100 years, the whole world will calm down, literally calm down. Well, that means that Blackholes will stop to radiate energy. Of course not! If gravity is really that powerful, blackholes will exist even after a googol years. And, if blackholes exist, then it will be foolish to think that Hawking Radiation will stop.
Well, that's the point, we don't know. We don't know yet. But, as far as astronomers observations go, dark energy remains constant. And, if it really remains that constant, a heat death is inevitable. One day, all the quarks in the universe will be so far from each other that even gravity won't be able to make them join together again. And with that, the cyclic universe theory is falsified. And, @rod , there you go, even the cyclic universe theory can be nullified. Now, you can't say that it can't be a theory. Sad that all our endeavours will have no value after a googol years. Really sad....
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram