Proof of a cyclical universe?

[Ishmael]

Greetings esteemed members...<br />Being a complete novice when it comes to astronomy, I was wondering about the theory surrounding a Cylical Universe versus the Cosmological constant. One theory even suggested both work together, with the expansion of the Universe slowing down each time the Universe expands & contracts.<br />My question is, would Black Holes offer proof of a Cyclical Universe, since its gravity is forcing everything back to a singularity? the big bang states we started from a singularity, to the universe itself, so isn't a black hole an example of the opposite? Gravity itself working against an expanding universe?<br />Any opinions would be appreciated! but please try and keep the talk simple for someone like myself to understand!<br />Thanks in advance...<br /><br />PS. If my theory proves to have to many holes in it (no pun intended) then ignore it...If it turns out to be valid, I got dibs on the theory name!<br />

 

[weeman]

Welcome to SDC message board Ismael! <br />Where's Roy Munson?!?<br /><br />Blackholes might be valid proof that a singularity can be a very real, existing thing in the Universe. In turn, this might mean that the Universe could have started as a singularity.<br /><br />However, this theory still doesn't really tell us if the Universe will ever stop expanding, and eventually collapse in on itself. The answer to that might lie more in the discoveries of Dark Matter. <br /><br />Meanwhile, I have to run to work! I will check this thread later on, and continue to state my opinions <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[qzzq]

Observations of very distant Ia supernovae seem to suggest that the Universe is expanding, and that the rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing. This should be interesting: <ul type="square">Hubble Finds Evidence for Dark Energy in the Young Universe<br /><br />...<br /><br />Previous Hubble observations of the most distant supernovae known revealed that the early universe was dominated by matter whose gravity was slowing down the universe's expansion rate, like a ball rolling up a slight incline. The observations also confirmed that the expansion rate of the cosmos began speeding up about five to six billion years ago. That is when astronomers believe that dark energy's repulsive force overtook gravity's attractive grip.<br /><br />...</ul>It seems very doubtful that our universe is a cyclical universe, at least not in the manner you described. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Even if it were cyclical, how would we ever know? All we could know, at best, is that it will collapse someday back into a monobloc. Which, as you pointed out, it does not appear to be likely to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Even if it were cyclical, how would we ever know? All we could know, at best, is that it will collapse someday back into a monobloc. Which, as you pointed out, it does not appear to be likely to do.</font><br /><br />Quite so. Considering that "relative" escape velocities of distant galaxies relative to our observations can apparently exceed <i>c</i>, we can't even know how big the Universe really is.<br /><br />It may be far bigger and far older than we surmise.<br /><br />I wonder how much of the "missing mass" that would reconcile the accelerating expansion of the Universe is ordinary matter that we can't see simply because its beyond our observational abilities.<br /><br />This whole "cyclical Universe" thing makes my layman's head hurt.<br /><br />What massive center of gravity that we have yet to find could suck everything back into implosion?<br /><br />One would think that such mass would be very obvious and very predictable unless there is some "border" that masses of galactic proportions will rebound off of and reverse course at relativistic velocities. Somehow, I can't imagine the titanic forces that could stop 300 billion solar masses acting in concert as one body hitting a wall and reversing direction without causing the Mother of all Gamma Ray Bursts as a result of the collision, unless I'm to beleve that the Universe is some Cosmic Rubber Band that reaches its maximum stretching point and flings Everything back towards Origin.<br /><br />Maybe my poor brain is just too feeble to grasp greater concepts, but I have a small understanding of the orbital mechanics of a long period comet.<br /><br />Even a 10,000 year orbital period is predictable given the trajectory of a comet, and its mass in relation to the mass of the Sun.<br /><br />What monstrous mass could cause 200 billion galaxies to decelerate in an expansion phase and then return to it?<br /><br />Trying to contemplate stuff like that always reminds me that I don't know very much.<b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> What monstrous mass could cause 200 billion galaxies to decelerate in an expansion phase and then return to it? </font><br /><br />Keep in mind too that there may very well be many, many more galaxies than just 200 billion. If we view one small section of the sky, count all the galaxies in that region, then extrapolate that over the entire sky, we come up with an estimated number of galaxies in the observable universe. However, we are counting galaxies in the universe from several billion years ago. Is it possible that number could have tripled or quadrupled by now?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />This whole "cyclical Universe" thing makes my layman's head hurt. <br /><br />What massive center of gravity that we have yet to find could suck everything back into implosion? </font><br /><br />Here's an aspirine for your headache. Sky & Telescope June 2003: "About 14 billion years ago our brane collided with a parallel brane in bulk space, what we call the Big Bang. The kinetic energy of the collision was converted to quarks, electrons, photons, etc. Each brane begins streching after the collision, which to us looks like cosmic expansion. <i> The two branes undergo an endlessly repeating cycle of collision-expansion-collision."</i> NOTE: There is no contraction of either brane! "As the branes stretch, they move apart and remain seperated by about 10^-30 cm in bulk space. After the branes have expanded, cooled, and thinned, an interbrane force draws the branes closer together, and finally collide, causing the extra dimension to momentarily collapse. The two branes bounce apart, or pass through each other, causing the next BB."<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[trumptor]

"Previous Hubble observations of the most distant supernovae known revealed that the early universe was dominated by matter whose gravity was slowing down the universe's expansion rate"<br /><br />Could it be that the dark matter that was initially slowing down the universe's expansion rate was also being tugged outward by the regular matter and as the regular matter slowed, the dark matter actually flew out farther than regular matter and now its gravitational pull is accelerating the expansion of regular matter while being again pulled back towards the regular matter? This might be absurd, but its an idea, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[trumptor]

"After the branes have expanded, cooled, and thinned, an interbrane force draws the branes closer together, and finally collide, causing the extra dimension to momentarily collapse. The two branes bounce apart, or pass through each other, causing the next BB."<br /><br />In this case, would it be possible for a very advanced civilization to hang on and survive on the remaining little amounts of energy of the old expanding universe and wait for a new BB to return towards the singularity to harness all the new energy created and to populate the new worlds created? Or would there be some temporary loss of the laws of physics or something else that would sterilize anything that was left in the old universe? And would the next BB create a similar structure as the current one did with galaxies and matter as we see it. Would it contain the same laws? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

First of all, couldn't they have come up with a better word than brane? Even though the spelling is different, all I can picture is actual brains flying through space, colliding into eachother <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Anyways, in response to your post Trumptor, I don't think the civilization would be able to survive. In order to survive, they might have to be some kind of trans-dimensional beings. In fact, the soul of a living thing can be referred to as being trans-dimensional. As we exist on Earth, our souls take on a physical form in a body of flesh and blood. After death, the trans-dimensional spirit leaves this dimension, or Universe, and is reincarnated somewhere else at some other point in time. <br /><br />Going back to what I was originally talking about, if an advanced civilization exists in a physical form in this Universe, I don't believe they could survive the end of this Universe, and witness the beginning of another. Anything and everything along the timeline of this present Universe will inevitably be destroyed at the "Big Crunch".<br /><br />As for the laws being the same in the next Universe, yes I think it is very possible for all the laws to be the same. What would govern entirely new laws from the previous Universe? I think another Universe may very well create stars and galaxies in the same ways that they exist in the present day Universe. <br /><br />However, I also think that each Universe might be sterilized of the previous Universe. This means that the same laws would govern each Universe, but each Universe has its own unique outcomes. Meaning that our existence here on Earth, in this exact manner, might only occur once. It might be very unique in its own ways. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

'Brane is an abbreviation for "Membrane." Which is factually correct and proper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />In this case, would it be possible for a very advanced civilization to hang on and survive on the remaining little amounts of energy of the old expanding universe and wait for a new BB to return towards the singularity to harness all the new energy created and to populate the new worlds created?</font><br /><br />No, everything is destroyed.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />And would the next BB create a similar structure as the current one did with galaxies and matter as we see it. Would it contain the same laws?</font><br /><br />Yep. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Anything and everything along the timeline of this present Universe will inevitably be destroyed at the "Big Crunch". </font><br /><br />Just to clarify, there is no "Big Crunch" in the Cyclic Universe Model, as I stated previously about the Branes (Membranes). <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

Thanks for the links Steve, they are interesting. I am going to try and teach myself to understand this chart of the galaxies <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>