DeathWorship Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 which do you think is more credible? personally, i believe the universe cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 which do you think is more credible? personally, i believe the universe cycles. My favorite is the Ekpyrotic, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. That can be cyclic and support a big bang effect as well, it incorporates most of the models in one way or the other. It's just like dropping a stone into a lake, and see how the waves rapidly moves away from the drop point. That's the big bang. And it can be repeated when the entropy makes the universe to brittle and starts falling apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 which do you think is more credible? personally, i believe the universe cycles. Those can easily be just two sides of the same coin. Who knows, and indeed, who will ever know whether an earlier universe got compressed in a big crunch, forming a singularity that eventually big-banged into our universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I'd say the big-bang. From what we know today (it could change in the future) the universe is headed toward an expansion that will never end. The future is pretty bleak. Stars will burn out, galaxies outside the local group will speed out of the visible universe and the universe will cool down ever closer to 0 K. If this is correct the universe will never experience a big-crunch and rebirth. But the future might not be so bleak after all. Dr. Andrei Linde from the Stanford University developed the theory of the self-reproducing universe. According to it, universes are born to a previous one. To be born a universe should have to borrow energy from the previous universe and the bigger the borrow, the faster the payback! But if the to-be-born universe has the critical density the gravitational energy, which has a negative sign, would equal the energy of matter and the total borrow would be null. Therefore a universe could be born spontaneously and exist forever. In a similar way our universe could be giving birth to other universe. It's a bit like life, you die but your children get to live and have children of their own. Yeah, but now where did that first universe come from? Or did it really have to come from something since you don't need to borrow any energy to create a universe. You don't even need god(s) to create the universe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Wow! Irony. I've just been reading some of Dr. Hawking's public lectures and one deals specifically w/this idea: "According to the no boundary proposal, the univers ould have expanded in a smooth way from a single point [ie big bang]. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field to create matter... Eventually the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion...What does the no boundry proposal predict for the end of our universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually..." Thus is it possible that both are correct and the "big bang" we are observing is on the most recent in a series of such events. Eternal in real time, but finite in imaginary time and space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Wow! Irony. I've just been reading some of Dr. Hawking's public lectures and one deals specifically w/this idea: "According to the no boundary proposal, the univers ould have expanded in a smooth way from a single point [ie big bang]. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field to create matter... Eventually the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion...What does the no boundry proposal predict for the end of our universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually..." Thus is it possible that both are correct and the "big bang" we are observing is on the most recent in a series of such events. Eternal in real time, but finite in imaginary time and space. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Awesome, I'm reading 'A Brief History of Time' By Hawkins and I just finished 'The First Second' (french) by Hubert Reeves. The concept of borrowing energy from gravity to create matters is new to me but it could make sense... energy is energy after all and it can be transformed into matter. What's the book? I'd really like to read more about this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I got it off a series of public lectures on his website, here the link The public lectures are geared towards "normal" people, but there's also a listing for "Physics Colloquiums" that's for the university level students. Take a look! I'm probably not doing his theories any justice here... PS - I got to see him live at a lecture call "the universe in a nutshell" in boston some time ago. To this day, it is one of the most amazing moments in my life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 ... 'The First Second' (french) by Hubert Reeves. ... Funny name of a book. You sure it wasn't the second first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Funny name of a book. You sure it wasn't the second first? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually the title is 'La première seconde' but you don't happen to speak french do you? PS - I got to see him live at a lecture call "the universe in a nutshell" in boston some time ago. To this day, it is one of the most amazing moments in my life... You lucky bastard!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 actually the title is 'La première seconde' but you don't happen to speak french do you? You lucky bastard!! I only speak bad swedish and bad english! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The best one I've heard is that this universes singularity was the result of a collision between branes (parallel universes) whose compatible contents provided the elements necessary for an expanding space time bubble that we call universe. We've just barely scratched the surface of all this weirdness.... more to come. Bring it on, I say! I hope the "God" particle experiment finds something other than the aforementioned particle (though it'd be really really cool to find the particle) because I love super weird science. The more mindboggingly weirder, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Oh, my brain!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts