"The Big Crunch"

Mathematics and Science; the subtle and ubiquitous arts

"The Big Crunch"

Post by WackyRacer on Sat May 10, 2008 4:48 pm
([msg=2216]see "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

Does anybody like this theory?
If you aren't familiar with this theory, the basic point is that the universe will end in a big crunch. The big crunch would be like the big bang reversed, so instead of expanding from one point it would now retract to one point.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosFate.html
<--- Basics

Personally i like the idea of the big crunch being the beginning of a new big bang. This is more appealing to me than everything coming to a halt. I like to think of it as a cycle filled with cycles. Inside the continual expansion and retraction of the universe (We may not be the first universe) we have the cycle of how galaxies and stars are formed, how planets are formed. On our planet we have the cycle of life, the food chain etc. There are many cycles within cycles and i like this idea over the idea of this being everything.

I am not trying to say that our life on earth is everything, i would definitely not say that. I suppose this just leaves me with the idea that anything is possible. In the next big bang the human race may not exist, maybe there will be a different version of our race. Perhaps there won't be any life forms?

Anyone care to share their thoughts?
WackyRacer
New User
New User
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by ypb9fzl3 on Sun May 11, 2008 11:54 pm
([msg=2292]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

As far as I've heard, the "omega constant" is probably a little greater than 1, so the big crunch will never occur.
All planets will separate from each other and the gravitation will not be able to hold everything together. Eventually the universe will cool down.
But we don't have to worry. Our sun will become a red gigant and consume the earth before that..
ypb9fzl3
New User
New User
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by WackyRacer on Mon May 12, 2008 9:18 am
([msg=2306]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

According to the link i provided if omega > 1 then the big crunch will happen unless you have a better source?
Also i would like to know where you heard that omega > 1?
Just out of curiosity.
WackyRacer
New User
New User
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by ypb9fzl3 on Mon May 12, 2008 1:57 pm
([msg=2311]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

First, I want to quote wikipedia:
"However, if the universe has a large amount of dark energy (as suggested by recent findings), then the expansion of the universe can continue forever – even if omega > 1"
Wikipedia is not scientific, but I couldn't find a better source at the moment.

My source for omega > 1 is figure 8 in http://panisse.lbl.gov/ (http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/pap ... BClust.pdf)
Note that omega = omega_lambda + omega_M.
Omega_lambda is the vacuum density and omega_M is the matter density (both dark and normal).
The vacuum density contains the dark energy. That explains why we can have omega > 1 and an expanding universe at the same time.

Your source is only correct if there is no dark energy (omega_lambda=0).
ypb9fzl3
New User
New User
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by TheMindRapist on Wed May 14, 2008 7:39 pm
([msg=2471]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

Hmm, I was reading about this actually.
Ending in a big crunch would be kinda cool, but there is still plenty of room for the universe to expand.
Not gonna be around to see it.
Image
User avatar
TheMindRapist
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by Kuja on Fri May 23, 2008 4:11 am
([msg=3074]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

I'm going to reply to this, cause it's pretty insulting. The big crunch is never going to happen, all chance of that was lost over 5 billion years ago. If it was to happen the universes expansion would have to be decelerating, however it's accelerating. Accelerating means it's not slowing down under gravity, meaning it won't get pulled together. I believe 'the big crunch' has been modified to 'the big rip' now.
Kuja
New User
New User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by TheMindRapist on Tue May 27, 2008 4:56 pm
([msg=3361]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

Sounds reasonable, my knowledge of string theory is rather out of date.
I need to get some more current books.
Image
User avatar
TheMindRapist
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by Crystal_Bearer on Thu May 29, 2008 5:40 am
([msg=3488]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

Kuja wrote:I'm going to reply to this, cause it's pretty insulting. The big crunch is never going to happen, all chance of that was lost over 5 billion years ago. If it was to happen the universes expansion would have to be decelerating, however it's accelerating. Accelerating means it's not slowing down under gravity, meaning it won't get pulled together. I believe 'the big crunch' has been modified to 'the big rip' now.


You bring up an interesting point. For those unfamiliar: look up 'redshift'. Most people fail to explain, however, what force could be acting on the celestial bodies to be accelerating them. One theory (ok, mine, as I call: the "Derivative Theory":D) is that the universe as a whole is actually curved such that it creates the "shell" of a sphere. As the celestial bodies cross the apex, they are sped up by the force of gravity of the opposing bodies. This explains why some have redshift in relation to the Earth, and some do not. I, personally, do not believe that the Earth as crossed such an apex, but it's theory as-is anyway.
Crystal_Bearer
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:48 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by Ntvu on Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:09 pm
([msg=4635]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

Didn't some people also believe that in 2000 the world would end?
So they killed themselves, then the year 2000 came.. and nothing happened. So I don't really believe all of the Big Crunch theory, and there's not enough evidence to prove this.
Ntvu
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: "The Big Crunch"

Post by Teh_noob on Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:55 am
([msg=6194]see Re: "The Big Crunch"[/msg])

If the universe has a defined boundary, then where is it? Most of the universe is just space where there is no matter or anti-matter. So the edge of the universe must be the infinite number of points where space meets matter, otherwise it would continue on forever which would mean that there is in fact no universe, only clumps of matter/anti-matter. If there is a "wall of matter" on the outside of the universe, why is it not on the inside, and the universe continues on past it?

That's my theory which contradicts the alternate theory of the big bang and a limited universe.
Teh_noob
New User
New User
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Next

Return to Math & Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests