🔒 Locked

circular Big Bang theory

Started by chuck22 Sep 25, 2007 at 1:10 AM 50 replies 8k views

Original Post

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:10 AM

i am pretty familiar with the big bang theory. for those of you who don't know what that is it's the theory that the universe began with all matter at a point of singularity. this point exploded and sent matter in all directions, thus an ever-expanding universe, and it was the interaction between the exploded contents, thought to be just helium and hydrogen, over billions of years that created the complex galaxies and solar systems we see today. heavier elements then came about by the nuclear forces and processes contained in stars. so here's the gravity equation F = GMm/R^2 G = gravitational constant M,m = masses R = radius between masses F = force anyway, the point of this post is that i watched a few discovery channel episodes on the topic and i'm also taking astronomy. black holes are a topic that interest me because nothing can escape a black hole once it is within a certain radius and this is mainly because you have a large amount of mass in a very small area (or volume to be more precise). based on that equation, any matter that was caught in the black hole would exponentially increase its gravitational force. since black holes suck up more and more matter and even other black holes it seems to me that this process leaves one inevitability and that the point (radius) of no return for black holes will increase large enough to encompass the known matter existing in the universe. this would suck everything back into a central point and so much mass would be in such a small space you could get a point of singularity again and the big bang would start all over. this idea seems possible to me because more matter decreases the radius between other matter which increases its gravitation force to pull even more matter in. it's seems like a nice circular theory to me and would explain how everything came from a point of singularity but still wouldn't explain the beginning of the universe. the universe may well just be on this circular cycle. i'm curious to hear other thought or interpretations.

instinKt

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:16 AM

The thing that sticks out to me is that because of the vast dinstances, it is possible for a black hole to stop actually sucking in matter and becoming 'stagnant' I guess.

You could argue that even at huge distances that the influence of the gravity would still have an effect even if minute, but then at that distance there will be many other forces to cancel that out.

I haven't put much thought into it, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.

ToohrVyk

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Whether matter concentrates as black holes or stays diffuse doesn't really matter (ha-ha-ha), since the gauss theorem only cares about the total contents of a volume, not their repartition.

Ultimately, there was an analysis a few years ago about whether the universe would expand infinitely (big freeze) or start shrinking (big crunch). I believe the infinite expansion theory is the favourite. Wikipedia.

chuck22

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:23 AM

i read the overview on the Big Freeze and it said that the entire universe could eventually reach absolute zero. i don't see how this could be possible since energy can neither be created or destroyed. in this case, all energy is destroyed.

also, it appears that i have accidentally re-suggested the Big Crunch theory without meaning to.

instinKt

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Destroyed or becomes infinitely small? :D

MaulingMonkey

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Quote:
Original post by chuck22
i read the overview on the Big Freeze and it said that the entire universe could eventually reach absolute zero. i don't see how this could be possible since energy can neither be created or destroyed. in this case, all energy is ~~destroyed~~ converted to matter.

Fixed.

instinKt

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Even though none of us will actually live to see it play out, do you still find the theory depressing? It always makes me feel lonely and cold. :(

I'm going to have to go off and try to come up with a much happier theory for the future. Something with lots of flowers and singing.

chuck22

Sep 25, 2007 at 1:55 AM

are you talking about the big freeze theory?

whenever i try to comprehend something so vast, such as the result of how the universe will interact with itself in billions of years..i start thinking on tangents and i soon lose interest in what i was first thinking of.

boolean

Sep 25, 2007 at 2:03 AM

Does the edge of the universe reflect light (or at least, is that a theory)? I've always wondered if it's true that the universe is expanding, if there was a point where it was small enough to reflect light back on the other side a lot quicker. If that happened, would it like putting a torch inside a tennis ball, making the universe look almost totally white?

I believe I've read something that suggests the universe is actually a lot smaller than we think, and most of the stars we see are just reflections of other stars off the edge of the universe, and that got me thinking about how it must have looked like shortly after the big bang.

instinKt

Sep 25, 2007 at 2:21 AM

Is the concept of 'universe' what encompasses all existing matter? Or the (assumed) never ending gap of nothingness?

I find it hard to believe that the nothingness is infinite, but almost paradoxically I find it harder to believe that the nothingness has an "edge". If it does (whether or not it reflects light), what's on the other side?!

asdfg__12

Sep 25, 2007 at 2:28 AM

@ Boolean: You are probably talking about the theorem according to which, the universe is like the 3D analogous of the surface of a sphere. This means, that if you start walking towards any direction on a sphere (or in the universe), you will be passing from the same point over and over again. Actually, when i think about the big bang, i think about the 1D analogous. Suppose we have a hose and we join the 2 edges so that we have a circle. We can simulate the big crunch by pushing the 2 edges the one inside the other as much as we can, so that the total arc becomes as small as possible.

slayemin

Sep 25, 2007 at 4:06 AM

The other feature about black holes is how they warp time. As you get closer to the center of the black hole, time outside the influence of the black hole will appear to slow down. An observer watching a time keeping device falling into the black hole would see its rate of time increase. I can only guess that the time shift is equivalent in strength to the gravitational pull of the black hole. I don't remember which was which, but there is a red and blue-shift. (read about it here)

So, if you take the above to be true and the Big Bang theory to be true, then I propose my idea...

Given:
A. Black holes contain ultra dense amounts of matter
B. Ultra dense amounts of matter have a ultra high gravitational field
C. ultra high gravitational fields warp the space-time continuum to slow down time.
D. The Big Bang period contained all matter and energy in the universe.
E. All matter in the universe in one singular point must have created an unthinkably large gravitational field.
F. Nothing escapes the gravitational pull of a black hole.

My Conclusions:
C1. The super duper large gravitational field caused by the big bang singularity must have slowed down time to a near stand-still. (From A,B,C,D & E)
C2. The Big Bang could not have happened instantaneously. (From C1)
C3. The amount of force required for all mass to overcome the combined gravitational effects of the entire universe is unknowable and questionable. (From F)

RSC_x

Sep 25, 2007 at 4:57 AM

no there is nothing like just existance of objects.
i think there is also before big bang story.
example with money:[note:money too is a form of energy.]
if you hewe $10 this means you find it from somwhere its not important if you find it or get it paid for your work.
so there is nothing liwes forewer because if you are not use it it's was newer existed.
if you use it it will turn to nothin but will produce another energy.
which can be convert to a cooke or cofee.or a pc game.
shortly that materials inside bigbang is created before it explode.
by some other factors /energy.

i mean unwerse get paid for its work. or somthing like this but if it was get paid more then it should. System will turn back to request it.
and probally unwerses any money will turn back.after anything ends.
what i know about systems rules is it stores any necessary data about that actions.

Iftah

Sep 25, 2007 at 6:17 AM

Quote:
Original post by chuck22
...since black holes suck up more and more matter and even other black holes it seems to me that this process leaves one inevitability and that the point (radius) of no return for black holes will increase large enough to encompass the known matter existing in the universe. this would suck everything back into a central point and so much mass would be in such a small space you could get a point of singularity again and the big bang would start all over.

this isn't an inevitability, the "radius of no escape" can forever increase and still have a small finite limit. For example suppose a(n) is the radius of the black hole in year "n", and is calculated by a(n) = a(n-1)+1/(2^n), a(0)=1 mile.
this will grow every year, but even billions of years later it will be smaller than 2 miles.

Oxyd

Sep 25, 2007 at 6:38 AM

Given the Universe expands -- where does it expand? Is it contained inside something else? Does it even have sense to talk about the "size" of the Universe? I mean -- is dimension just a local attribute of the Universe, or does it exist everywhere, even outside of the Universe? And what is time anyway? Does it exist just inside our Universe or not?

Not that I really had a point right now, it's just that everytime I read about stuff like this, I start thinking about questions like this and never really get far -- usually I end up with different answers than I came up with the previous time... But perhaps someone here will offer yet another answer. [smile]

d000hg

Sep 25, 2007 at 6:43 AM

Though it's old and there have been hundreds of newer theories, Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is still excellent. I recommend it and find it quite readable, but you do have to put a bit of effort in.
He talks about the 3 possibilities there - expand for ever, expand then collapse, or expand at a slower and slower rate.

He wrote a newer book as well which is more accessible and has pictures/diagrams, which also has some stuff on more recent developments. Can't remember the name.

In my view, anyone who's interested in discussing this stuff on Gamedev should have read at least one book like those first.

DeafManNoEars

Sep 25, 2007 at 7:15 AM

Quote:
Original post by d000hg

In my view, anyone who's interested in discussing this stuff on Gamedev should have read at least one book like those first.

Why, so they can regurgitate someone else's point of view?

The OP is:

Quote:

curious to hear other thought or interpretations

not just everyone's interpretations of what Stephen Hawking said. I for one am interested in hearing everyone's points on the subject whether or not they are influenced by great minds like Einstien or Hawking. Naturally, if one is to talk about the current believed theories then they would have to be well read on the topic, but for their own personal beliefs I would love to hear the least influenced point of view as possible.

Anyway, back on the topic of my opinion on whether black holes will consume all matter in the universe and recreate the Big Bang. I think it depends on the expansion of the universe. If all matter is getting increasingly more distant to all other matter, and if this expansion is at a rate that is greater than the growth of a Black hole, then I don't see it possible for that to happen.

However if the edge of the universe has a surface then this surface must be applying forces that are opposing the expansion of the universe (think balloon). Will this force become greater than the force causing the expansion? Will the "balloon's" surface tear? Who knows?

Quote:

Nothing escapes the gravitational pull of a black hole.

Says who? I think A,B,C and D are the only points that can be taken as "given". Gravity is one of the weakest forces. Who is to say how it reacts when so tightly entangled with the other natural forces, that are much more powerful.

From what I understand the mass of black holes under no external forces will decrease in mass. Energy and subatomic particles have been theorized to have the ability to escape a black hole thus decreasing it's mass.

Damn, I sound like an a$$... Sorry.

RSC_x

Sep 25, 2007 at 8:27 AM

here is my theory/? about existance of objects
nothing=0/nothing

request_existance(nothing)

nothing=+10$ + -10$ + ?

-10$=existing object [negative object [note:somthing about this also exists on stephen howkings theory.]]
+10$=existing object
?=?// may be mey be not.

sou there is 20$ difference
black_hole(+10 -10){

do stuff
return nothing + ? }

after all difference=0;
object=nothing+?;
shortly 0=+1-1
0=nothing[dead]
and may be some parts ara missing/wrong.

Sneftel

Sep 25, 2007 at 8:34 AM

Quote:
Original post by RSC_x
here is my theory/? about existance of objects
nothing=0/nothing

request_existance(nothing)

nothing=+10$ + -10$ + ?

-10$=existing object [negative object [note:somthing about this also exists on stephen howkings theory.]]
+10$=existing object
?=?// may be mey be not.

sou there is 20$ difference
black_hole(+10 -10){

do stuff
return nothing + ? }

after all difference=0;
object=nothing+?;
shortly 0=+1-1
0=nothing[dead]
and may be some parts ara missing/wrong.

Huh.

d000hg

Sep 25, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Quote:
Original post by DeafManNoEars
Quote:
Original post by d000hg

In my view, anyone who's interested in discussing this stuff on Gamedev should have read at least one book like those first.

Why, so they can regurgitate someone else's point of view?

The OP is:
Quote:

curious to hear other thought or interpretations

not just everyone's interpretations of what Stephen Hawking said. I for one am interested in hearing everyone's points on the subject whether or not they are influenced by great minds like Einstien or Hawking. Naturally, if one is to talk about the current believed theories then they would have to be well read on the topic, but for their own personal beliefs I would love to hear the least influenced point of view as possible.

If you want the least influenced view possible, go ask someone who never took a Physics class. I wasn't saying people should believe Hawking but if the only things people know about this stuff is what they got from sci-fi then it's pointless. There's a lot of maths and observations which all these theories build on, discussing it without knowing those isn't achieving anything.
If you want to hold an uninformed discussion on some area of science, pick something like parallel universes, then you can say anything you want...

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.