The big bang meets the big crunch

Which theory do you think is true?

  • Only the Big Bang

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • The Big Bang and The Big Crunch

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Both are poppycock

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Total voters
    15

Floydical

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
4,030
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Now everyone knows about the theory of the Big Bang and, generally speaking, its a widely accepted fact. The basic idea is that the universe started out as a single atom and exploded outward in an instant, releasing all the matter contained in our universe. This single atom of our universe would, of course, be insanely dense, dense enough to border it on infinite. Another well accepted fact of our universe is that it is still in motion, as most planetary objects/ galaxies are becoming further and further apart from one another. Of course, some galaxies like ours and Andromeda are actually getting closer, but that is not true of the vast majority. Not only that, but its widely accepted that galaxies around our universe are ACCELERATING away from each other. This would mean eventually we won't even be able to see most of the known universe.

Now consider the possibility of the universe not accelerating away from itself, but rather decelerating. Imagine a universe that inevitably gets closer and closer in on itself. Image what would happen if every galaxy got too close. Follow this line of thought further and what do you get? The theory of the Big Crunch, which inevitably leads to a new big bang.

Short hand of it, a universe in flux eventually falls back in on itself, creating a Big Crunch, and eventually crushes down into a single atom. That single atom becomes so impossibly dense that it cannot get any denser. At that instant in time, the process reverses in an astounding display of power, creating a new universe. That would be the Big Bang.

Now lets say the Big Crunch / Big Bang event has happened several times. We could have already lost countless stars and galaxies worth of matter already. By that I mean perhaps one day, once The Milky Way and Andromeda combine, we might create our very own Big Crunch/ Big Bang scenario. Considering this idea, the number of times this could potentially have happened can border on infinite. If smaller clusters of galaxies can create there own big bangs, that perhaps several of them can be happening in our universe right now, but we're just not aware.

Or perhaps, there is some border to our universe, and when galaxies/ matter eventually hit it, they are bounced back by it an eventually all matter, whether its accelerating away from us right now or not, will eventually come back in on itself. This would create a way for matter to never be lost and create a singular Bing Bang/ Big Crunch theory. Either way.... its a topic with essentially an infinite number of possibilities, but I think it makes a lot of sense that if the Big Bang is a fact, than the Big Crunch is a fact as well.

If this topic intrigues you, please share your thoughts on it. If it makes no sense and you question its validity, please explain why you feel that way. Thanks for reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Math42

Pumpkin Ninja

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,534
Kin
583💸
Kumi
2,186💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I understand the big bang theory and all but when people say the universe is in a hot dense state before the big bang, what do they mean? Isn't space (empty space) itself part of the universe? That part doesn't make sense to me. Or are they just referring to matter like stars, planets, etc?

Also, if the universe is accelerating, how can you say it's decelerating as well? This is the first time I've heard of the big crunch.
 
Last edited:

Floydical

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
4,030
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I understand the big bang theory and all but when people say the universe is in a hot dense state before the big bang, what do they mean? Isn't space (empty space) itself part of the universe? That part doesn't make sense to me. Or are they just referring to matter like stars, planets, etc?

Also, if the universe is accelerating, how can you say it's decelerating as well? This is the first time I've heard of the big crunch.
'Hot and dense' refers to the universe just before the Big Bang. Its when all the mass of the universe was contained in the size of an atom. The energy, mass and heat contained in that single atom would be beyond reckoning.

I asked the reader to 'consider' a universe that was decelerating, this will explain the Big Crunch to you. If you consider a universe falling in on itself, it will eventually boil down to a 'hot and dense' singular atom. The idea is that its a constant flux of Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang.
 

Pumpkin Ninja

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,534
Kin
583💸
Kumi
2,186💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
'Hot and dense' refers to the universe just before the Big Bang. Its when all the mass of the universe was contained in the size of an atom. The energy, mass and heat contained in that single atom would be beyond reckoning.

I asked the reader to 'consider' a universe that was decelerating, this will explain the Big Crunch to you. If you consider a universe falling in on itself, it will eventually boil down to a 'hot and dense' singular atom. The idea is that its a constant flux of Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang.
Ah, makes sense. It's a possibility I guess.
 

Floydical

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
4,030
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
So where did that single atom come from?
Quite literally its a case of the chicken or the egg...

However the universe was created, once the matter was there, you have what you need to create that single atom. The single atom would come from the entire universe eventually falling in on itself, ie the big crunch.
 

Agent Phrank

Active member
Regular
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
695
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Quite literally its a case of the chicken or the egg...

However the universe was created, once the matter was there, you have what you need to create that single atom. The single atom would come from the entire universe eventually falling in on itself, ie the big crunch.
So where did that single atom come from?
The Big Bang Theory addresses the evolution of the universe, not its conception.

Thermodynamics is still valid.

OT: So if we assume that both theories are valid, has the universe has gone through multiple phases of Big Bang and Crush at different rates?

It would comply with the 2nd law and thus getting closer to heat death. aka the "Big Freeze"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ToshiZO

Bimbonium

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
6,573
Kin
7💸
Kumi
1💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I understand the big bang theory and all but when people say the universe is in a hot dense state before the big bang, what do they mean? Isn't space (empty space) itself part of the universe? That part doesn't make sense to me. Or are they just referring to matter like stars, planets, etc?

Also, if the universe is accelerating, how can you say it's decelerating as well? This is the first time I've heard of the big crunch.
wow! I've never considered it, what was outside the dense atom before the big bang? I know the answer most likely is nothing, but how did the nothing look, cos even emptiness is part of our known universe. The universe is expanding therefore at any instant there is this same nothingness just outside it's border.

OT: The universe decelerating is different from the universe accelerating in the opposite direction (therefore re-combining).
 

Wparker6804

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,867
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Thought this was funny, thought I'd share.
[specifically 2:00 minutes in]
[video=youtube;MmrevhzVcD8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmrevhzVcD8[/video]
This has NOTHING to do with religion just the difficulty some have with the Big Bang--that's what I'm specifically talking about.

I know it's rich coming from me, but I just find the idea too hard to believe. Main reason is how human nature resides in human science (LONG explanation I won't get into but it would make sense & aims to be unbiased).
 

Agent Phrank

Active member
Regular
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
695
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Thought this was funny, thought I'd share.
[specifically 2:00 minutes in]
[video=youtube;MmrevhzVcD8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmrevhzVcD8[/video]
This has NOTHING to do with religion just the difficulty some have with the Big Bang--that's what I'm specifically talking about.

I know it's rich coming from me, but I just find the idea too hard to believe. Main reason is how human nature resides in human science (LONG explanation I won't get into but it would make sense & aims to be unbiased).
"(LONG explanation I won't get into but it would make sense & aims to be unbiased)."

Please elaborate, I'm curious.
 

Wparker6804

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,867
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
"(LONG explanation I won't get into but it would make sense & aims to be unbiased)."

Please elaborate, I'm curious.
I have faith in science but not MANKIND'S science--about humanity's description & explination on how the universe works. Because all of humanity has human nature & human condition. We make mistakes, we have flaws & it's unfortunately inevitable that such things are applied to something that millions of individual men & women have all dabbled in all throughout history.

People have a natural instinct (not talking specifically with science) to take an idea or a thought & treat it as fact or truth because it sounds nice, seems right or it sounds terrible & we're coaching our self into anger (another human condition). Or, alternatively we dismiss it because it sounds bad or undesirable. We like/dislike someone/thing & we then hear something good/bad that seams plausible/desirable and to some degree it's treated as fact in the human mind. This is the number one source of assumptions & mistakes & we've all done it. This, unfortunately also applies to man's science. So many things that are seen as facts & absolute truth but could easily be disproven in later events.

Mankind knew with absolute truth that the earth was flat or the center of the universe or this or that--and we've been proven wrong countless times. Man's science is constantly changing & hasn't been 100% dependable or set at any point in time. It's not that I have don't have faith in science, but rather I don't have faith in humanity. No doubt something as simple as 2+2=4, but something like evolution & the "Big Bang" just seem too outlandish as a human creation/theory for be to put much faith in it.

As Mark Lowry put it, pull apart a watch piece by piece, stick it in a sack, shake it for 6-8 billion years & pull it out, ticking & on time. Convince me that's possible & I might just believe something like this.

*edit on the end of the first paragraph: I'm not saying science is infested with it completely, but it's undeniable that at least some small part of it is*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Agent Phrank

Floydical

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
4,030
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I have faith in science but not MANKIND'S science--about humanity's description & explination on how the universe works. Because all of humanity has human nature & human condition. We make mistakes, we have flaws & it's unfortunately inevitable that such things are applied to something that millions of individual men & women have all dabbled in all throughout history.

People have a natural instinct (not talking specifically with science) to take an idea or a thought & treat it as fact or truth because it sounds nice, seems right or it sounds terrible & we're coaching our self into anger (another human condition). Or, alternatively we dismiss it because it sounds bad or undesirable. We like/dislike someone/thing & we then hear something good/bad that seams plausible/desirable and to some degree it's treated as fact in the human mind. This is the number one source of assumptions & mistakes & we've all done it. This, unfortunately also applies to man's science. So many things that are seen as facts & absolute truth but could easily be disproven in later events.

Mankind knew with absolute truth that the earth was flat or the center of the universe or this or that--and we've been proven wrong countless times. Man's science is constantly changing & hasn't been 100% dependable or set at any point in time. It's not that I have don't have faith in science, but rather I don't have faith in humanity. No doubt something as simple as 2+2=4, but something like evolution & the "Big Bang" just seem too outlandish as a human creation/theory for be to put much faith in it.

As Mark Lowry put it, pull apart a watch piece by piece, stick it in a sack, shake it for 6-8 billion years & pull it out, ticking & on time. Convince me that's possible & I might just believe something like this.

*edit on the end of the first paragraph: I'm not saying science is infested with it completely, but it's undeniable that at least some small part of it is*

I was going to use the 'Earth is flat' idea to try to convince you otherwise. Truth is, back when this idea was accepted, people were shunned for theorizing otherwise and even killed. When the first man proposed the world was a sphere, he was looked at like a lunatic. The same can be said here, just because the Big Bang and Big Crunch seem too much for you to fathom, does not mean its untrue. Having faith in something that is clearly cyclical is far from a stretch of faith (by cyclical I mean a big crunch leading to a big bang, back to a big crunch and so on). If the universe is clearly accelerating outward, than clearly it had a starting point. Its simple logic we're talking about here, unless you can convince me otherwise?
 
Last edited:

Agent Phrank

Active member
Regular
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
695
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I have faith in science but not MANKIND'S science--about humanity's description & explination on how the universe works. Because all of humanity has human nature & human condition. We make mistakes, we have flaws & it's unfortunately inevitable that such things are applied to something that millions of individual men & women have all dabbled in all throughout history.

People have a natural instinct (not talking specifically with science) to take an idea or a thought & treat it as fact or truth because it sounds nice, seems right or it sounds terrible & we're coaching our self into anger (another human condition). Or, alternatively we dismiss it because it sounds bad or undesirable. We like/dislike someone/thing & we then hear something good/bad that seams plausible/desirable and to some degree it's treated as fact in the human mind.
So you're concerned about subjective motives and their involvement in scientific endeavors.
This is the number one source of assumptions & mistakes & we've all done it. This, unfortunately also applies to man's science. So many things that are seen as facts & absolute truth but could easily be disproven in later events.
It's evident that the scientific theory is valid if we can disprove these "absolute truths"

Mankind knew with absolute truth that the earth was flat or the center of the universe or this or that--and we've been proven wrong countless times. Man's science is constantly changing & hasn't been 100% dependable or set at any point in time.
This assumption is built on the premise that science is irrefutable and absolute.
The principles of scientific theory are that they can be falsifiable, testified, and repeated.

It's not that I have don't have faith in science, but rather I don't have faith in humanity.
Pessimistic circular reasoning much?

No doubt something as simple as 2+2=4, but something like evolution & the "Big Bang" just seem too outlandish as a human creation/theory for be to put much faith in it.
That's the issue with extrapolating the universe's laws and phenomena.

What is being disregarded about what you call these "outlandish" theories are the physics, models, data, observations, and equations that pertain to these theories.
A lot of it is simplification so that the layman or the curious reader can get an understanding of these "abstract" theories.

It explains why scientific breakthroughs are presented with models. The DNA double helix, Issac's laws, the heliocentric model, E=Mc^2
How they derived this information is left for the reader to find through published articles, footnotes, and calculations.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Everything should be explained as simple as possible, but not more"

As Mark Lowry put it, pull apart a watch piece by piece, stick it in a sack, shake it for 6-8 billion years & pull it out, ticking & on time. Convince me that's possible & I might just believe something like this.
Interesting analogy but it doesn't take into consideration a changing environment or any laws that pertain to equilibrium.

*edit on the end of the first paragraph: I'm not saying science is infested with it completely, but it's undeniable that at least some small part of it is*
And now we've reached circular reasoning.


You must be registered for see images

Mangafacts
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wparker6804

hixa kuogame

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
7,459
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The Big Bang Theory addresses the evolution of the universe, not its conception.

Thermodynamics is still valid.

OT: So if we assume that both theories are valid, has the universe has gone through multiple phases of Big Bang and Crush at different rates?

It would comply with the 2nd law and thus getting closer to heat death. aka the "Big Freeze"
So why put faith in the Big Bang if there is no reasoning to its "conception"?
 

Agent Phrank

Active member
Regular
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
695
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
So why put faith in the Big Bang if there is no reasoning to its "conception"?
Because the focus of the Big Bang is to understand how the universe got to our present time and to where it's headed.

From the OP:
"The basic idea is that the universe started out as a single atom and exploded outward in an instant, releasing all the matter contained in our universe."

It's conception may be explained with Higgs Boson or string theory but we've only recently started understanding how scientific laws pertain to the current universe.
Take into consideration that it was previously believed that the Big Bang conflicted with these laws.
 
Last edited:

hixa kuogame

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
7,459
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Because the focus of the Big Bang is to understand how the universe got to our present time and to where it's headed.

From the OP:
"The basic idea is that the universe started out as a single atom and exploded outward in an instant, releasing all the matter contained in our universe."

It's conception may be explained with Higgs Boson or string theory but we've only recently started understanding how scientific laws pertain to the current universe.
Take into consideration that it was previously believed that the Big Bang conflicted with these laws.
But it's a made up theory right? There's no solid evidence. I could come up with a story just as easily as to how the universe came to be. How is there a super compressed atom that just come from no where to create an entire universe?
 

Floydical

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
4,030
Kin
5💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
But it's a made up theory right? There's no solid evidence. I could come up with a story just as easily as to how the universe came to be. How is there a super compressed atom that just come from no where to create an entire universe?
The super compressed atom didn't come from nowhere, it perhaps was created by an ever compressing universe that had its own big bang a very long time ago. Again, the process would be cyclic and each new Big Bang could very well contain only a part of the universe involved in the last cycle.

As for the original origin of the universe and its matter... we're talking about faith here, not science. Science can't explain how everything suddenly came into existence, just how its lifespan might have gone up until now.
 

Wparker6804

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,867
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
So you're concerned about subjective motives and their involvement in scientific endeavors.


It's evident that the scientific theory is valid if we can disprove these "absolute truths"

This assumption is built on the premise that science is irrefutable and absolute.
The principles of scientific theory are that they can be falsifiable, testified, and repeated.



Pessimistic circular reasoning much?


That's the issue with extrapolating the universe's laws and phenomena.

What is being disregarded about what you call these "outlandish" theories are the physics, models, data, observations, and equations that pertain to these theories.
A lot of it is simplification so that the layman or the curious reader can get an understanding of these "abstract" theories.

It explains why scientific breakthroughs are presented with models. The DNA double helix, Issac's laws, the heliocentric model, E=Mc^2
How they derived this information is left for the reader to find through published articles, footnotes, and calculations.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Everything should be explained as simple as possible, but not more"



Interesting analogy but it doesn't take into consideration a changing environment or any laws that pertain to equilibrium.



And now we've reached circular reasoning.


You must be registered for see images

Mangafacts
I understand all of these replies & your point of view makes sense. But the simple fact is that I just have a hard time trusting mankind's interpretation on such a massive scale after realizing one of mankind's key flaws & trying hard (often slipping) to fix it in myself. I guess I don't have much room for optimism or trust anymore. Makes me feel old :-/
 
Top