Question Cyclical Universe

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Yeah, as far as I know ( I don't know much)...........
You just have to love the modesty of this guy!

No the universe appears to never quite "die".

But is it really "alive"?

It appears rather lively today, but in the distant future, while there remains some trace of thermal activity, can we really call it alive?

Not sure, but we can say with reasonable certainty that heat never dies, it just fades away.......
 
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
You just have to love the modesty of this guy!

No the universe appears to never quite "die".

But is it really "alive"?

It appears rather lively today, but in the distant future, while there remains some trace of thermal activity, can we really call it alive?

Not sure, but we can say with reasonable certainty that heat never dies, it just fades away.......
Well, to be really frank, I am nought but a teenager. I am nothing compared to people such as dfjchem, rod, Cat, Helio etc. You people are so knowledgeable! And, I am really lucky that I ever got in contact with you all.

Coming back to the conversation, well, we can compare a universe with very less heat with a person who has gone to coma. (I am apologising in the first hand because I am comparing to a person with coma)

Now, er, if it is really serious, then that person might never fruit back to life. But there, the point is that he is still alive. Not dead.

And, if it is not that serious, then after some time, he will come back, just like before. So, a universe with very less thermal energy (I guess I am not sounding anthropomorphic, Cat) might regain its former discord if it still has black holes.

Again, due to Hawking Radiation, blackholes also decay. But, well, they never actually die. Theoretically, they may die. But, actually they won't. As, they almost gobble more matter than they give out. And, whenever the blackholes do those bursts when energy and matter goes out from its poles (I have forgotten what it's called, is it gamma ray?), they charge up their surroundings and give birth to new solar systems and stars. And, that makes it sure that new stars won't cease to take birth.

What do you think?
 
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Again, due to Hawking Radiation, blackholes also decay. But, well, they never actually die. Theoretically, they may die.
It seems that maximum disorder is the ultimate "goal" for entropic systems. As a black holes seems rather ordered, with an enormous mass/volume ratio, it can produce a lot of work from its gravitational field. So it seems unlikely to be an end stage in entropy. All such things should evaporate by some means and convert to a lower state of order. That it can evaporate suggests in itself it is of a higher ordered state than entropy would allow.

Cosmic entropy (from wiki) is defined as " all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy so that no more work can be extracted from any source."

Sounds like all low level ER to some of us. Would love to hear from others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Feb 18, 2020
1,202
860
1,570
IG, firstly I think that you are to be commended for your sensitivity regarding the analogy which you chose. It would be difficult for anyone in that situation to accept.

Having said that, then I must say that it is a very powerful analogy, and you might not like my words, but I do think that it is a tad anthropomorphic. The gap between human life and the extent of the Universe is (I could almost use the "I" word :) ) beyond human understanding.

Then, with those reservations, I believe we would compliment you on your exposition. It shows great understanding, which I have come to expect from you :)

I am sure that we are all with you in this discussion :)

Cat :)
 
A moon orbiting a planet even in a stone cold universe will create tidal heat.
Universe can never really reach absolute 0 .
Even a universe of just electrons or radiation will interact creating some heat.

If planets can still exist and the universe doesn't tear itself into radiation then basic life could go on until the end of time if such a thing exists.
Life just needs a puddle in a planet or moon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
I think the real question is how do we get a universe density black hole to start if the universe is all that exists.
And how do we get that black hole density before it becomes a big bang.
Give a good answer to how both those happen and i think the answer to a cyclic universe or not will follow.

I still think the universe isn't the black hole or big bang.
But that's JMO :)
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,566
523
2,560
FYI. Space.com and Livescience sites reported on how the universe was born, 'quantum mechanical fluctuations'. The goal of BB cosmology, and a cyclical universe is to show there is no divine in the origin of the universe. This is freely admitted now in recent reports and I find such admissions refreshing, not hiding anything here in terms of the objectives for origin answers. Example, 'The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say', https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html, June 2012. Also, ‘Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?’, http://www.livescience.com/23251-science-religion-god-physics.html, 17-Sep-2012.

According to those two reports shown, QM can explain the origin of the BB and the universe - so some claim.
 
One thought i had many years ago was we started with nothing that spawned quantum fluctuation.
A balance act of it caused a buildup of regional energy and mass.
It accumulates and eventually becomes the the universe density black hole.
It's unstable do to a crunch of time and becomes the big bang.
Everything expands faster and clears out what was the universe size fluctuation.
Process begins again.

Maybe our universe goes on forever this way like an endless onion skin.
Only problem with the idea was if one of these could exist why not infinite numbers of them all starting in the same way?
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
736
453
760
FYI. Space.com and Livescience sites reported on how the universe was born, 'quantum mechanical fluctuations'. The goal of BB cosmology, and a cyclical universe is to show there is no divine in the origin of the universe. This is freely admitted now in recent reports and I find such admissions refreshing, not hiding anything here in terms of the objectives for origin answers. Example, 'The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say', https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html, June 2012. Also, ‘Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?’, http://www.livescience.com/23251-science-religion-god-physics.html, 17-Sep-2012.

According to those two reports shown, QM can explain the origin of the BB and the universe - so some claim.
People, all of us, tend to believe what we want to believe.

Regarding the first article: It was Alex Filippenko that was the astrophysicist (not a quantum physicist) that I was referring to in one of my posts above that switched from the Berlkely team to the Harvard team. Both teams, almost on the same day, announced the universe was accelerating in its expansion. He should well know that in the last few years the revised age is now 13.8 billion years, not 13.7. A nit, admittedly, but not one he should be making if he wants to use his clout to make the claim he is making here.

To invoke the problems with trusting instinctive behaviors is a clever way to get trust for complex physics to be endorsed. But science is somewhat anathema to the idea of trust, especially if it is trust alone. An objective foundation is required to reach the level of hypotheses and theories. At t=0, the best of my knowledge, all the models spit values that run off to infinity. [All yours Cat! ;)]

[BTW, he is someone I greatly admire.]

He makes some conflicting statements. He states that God can't be ruled out but that one can, and should, "trust the laws of physics". He later states that the laws of physics "doesn't take us all the way". Huh? I suspect this is extrapolation since physics has taken us so close that it's not hard to extrapolate it further from t=E-43 to t=0.

He seems convinced that the laws themselves, if a quantum fluctuation occurred, would generate a universe. But this is another ham sandwich problem: if we have some bread (quantum fluctuation) we would have a ham sandwich (universe) if we had some ham (spacetime). What sort of dance can a quantum fluctuation do if it has no time and no space to do the dance?

[Must go, but I would like to give my take on the 2nd article soon.]
 
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
Exactly! [I'm about to go get a ham sandwich, or maybe some ham and eggs. Green if they have some. ;)]
That's the point. How can energy come out of nowhere and nothing? (literally!)

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created nor be destroyed but it can be transformed from one form to another. But, how was there energy at the first place. I mean, that's quite illogical!
 
People, all of us, tend to believe what we want to believe.

Regarding the first article: It was Alex Filippenko that was the astrophysicist (not a quantum physicist) that I was referring to in one of my posts above that switched from the Berlkely team to the Harvard team. Both teams, almost on the same day, announced the universe was accelerating in its expansion. He should well know that in the last few years the revised age is now 13.8 billion years, not 13.7. A nit, admittedly, but not one he should be making if he wants to use his clout to make the claim he is making here.

To invoke the problems with trusting instinctive behaviors is a clever way to get trust for complex physics to be endorsed. But science is somewhat anathema to the idea of trust, especially if it is trust alone. An objective foundation is required to reach the level of hypotheses and theories. At t=0, the best of my knowledge, all the models spit values that run off to infinity. [All yours Cat! ;)]

[BTW, he is someone I greatly admire.]

He makes some conflicting statements. He states that God can't be ruled out but that one can, and should, "trust the laws of physics". He later states that the laws of physics "doesn't take us all the way". Huh? I suspect this is extrapolation since physics has taken us so close that it's not hard to extrapolate it further from t=E-43 to t=0.

He seems convinced that the laws themselves, if a quantum fluctuation occurred, would generate a universe. But this is another ham sandwich problem: if we have some bread (quantum fluctuation) we would have a ham sandwich (universe) if we had some ham (spacetime). What sort of dance can a quantum fluctuation do if it has no time and no space to do the dance?

[Must go, but I would like to give my take on the 2nd article soon.]
I have a feeling that time is simply the quanta distance in quantum fluctuation.
Reason why light goes at light speed and same reason why a black hole doesn't shrink forever and become infinite mass/gravity as gravity also shrinks the distance and time grows longer more its compressed.

No time arrow just relative distance to the next quanta
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
FYI. Space.com and Livescience sites reported on how the universe was born, 'quantum mechanical fluctuations'. The goal of BB cosmology, and a cyclical universe is to show there is no divine in the origin of the universe. This is freely admitted now in recent reports and I find such admissions refreshing, not hiding anything here in terms of the objectives for origin answers. Example, 'The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say', https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html, June 2012. Also, ‘Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?’, http://www.livescience.com/23251-science-religion-god-physics.html, 17-Sep-2012.

According to those two reports shown, QM can explain the origin of the BB and the universe - so some claim.
I wish someone had of tied that idea into a neat bow and tackled how do we get quantum fluctuation from nothing?
 
Yeah, I know that. I mean to say, as far as the Big Bang Theory is concerned, before the Big Bang, there was no space nor time. So, how come there was even energy?
That is a question that most physicists generally can't answer.
Universe starts as a huge energy point for no reason, before it nothing.
Not much of an answer IMO.

I tend to think the universe is fluctuation, big bang and expanding faster is only what is happening to the big bang.
Time a simple distance measure of fluctuation, gravity something that travels between quanta in the void between them.
Much like a neutrino having the ability to go right through a planet with no interaction.

Before the big bang was a universe of fluctuation, after the big bang is done same thing.
Starting a big bang with a universe that is always a universe is easy in many different ways.E balance accumulation, onion skin E removal, collisions, cannibalism or a mechanism like time can't fill in more space as the universe expands and it stops expansion.

Lots of interesting ways a universe could be cyclic :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Jun 1, 2020
736
453
760
Continuing to the 2nd article as promised...(#111)

This article is like the prior one where we must believe that physics will someday get past the Planck unit of time restriction and go all the way to t=0.

...there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”

So, this comes across as "we might get there someday. Trust us".

But notice how the article later sneaks in the following statement:
“(The theory already works without God.)”

Well, looks like "someday" is here already. That was fast. :) So which quantum gravity theory is the one that “already works”?

The method used to help draw this supposition is not an unreasonable one, but typical:

' "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help...". He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil.'

The superstitions that were fabricated in the past that had overlap with science were exposed to its scrutiny. So, yes, clearly science has continued to diminish many religious beliefs. But the tenets are barely scratched for some religions.

"Cosmologists can model what happened from 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang until now, but the split-second before that remains murky."

So much for a working theory. And good luck testing one that starts from absolute nothing including space when any test made within our universe would be one made in space, no doubt.

Some theologians have tried to equate the moment of the Big Bang with the description of the creation of the world found in the Bible.

This isn’t really that true today, as far as I know. This was true, however, when the priest, Georges Lemaitre, first introduced the world to his theory (now BBT). When the Pope began to announce Lematire's discovery as the answer to “In the beginning”, Lemaitre felt compelled to write a letter to the Pope to point out how the early moments didn’t match the Genesis account. That stopped those ideas, at least for mainstream religion.

"…physics theories, though still under development and awaiting future experimental testing, are turning out to be capable of explaining why Big Bangs occur, without the need for a supernatural jumpstart."

How is this not metaphysics? I'm not saying it won't ever happen but is it real science? There is a big difference between supposition and hypothesis. He presents no actual theory as an example case of hard science, though he favors something will come along from quantum gravity theories... still under development.

Then there is the counterargument to science having all the answers– fine tuning:

'Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes unrecognizable. "For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible,"Carroll said. And thus, so would life as we know it.'

His solution, of course, is to have an infinite number of universes. Not one, however, as ever been found, nor a way to find one.

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues.

These are "nothing" arguments:

If one believes in the “God hypothesis”, then, in the eyes of science, there is nothing there to go by.

If, however, one believes in a scientific explanation, nothing is the material thing from which all arose, and it may require an infinite number of other nothing universes to get this one.

The problem with all of this is that science and religion (& philosophy) have great regions within themselves that have no overlapping magesteria, as Gould called them. There's nothing wrong with a scientist arguing philosophy but labels need to be applied properly, including ones that need the label "scientism".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jun 1, 2020
736
453
760
I have a feeling that time is simply the quanta distance in quantum fluctuation.
Reason why light goes at light speed and same reason why a black hole doesn't shrink forever and become infinite mass/gravity as gravity also shrinks the distance and time grows longer more its compressed.

No time arrow just relative distance to the next quanta
Time is truly weird. I tend to see time as something flowing into our universe as if the expansion of space itself pulls it in and joins with it somehow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS