Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:47:12 EST ID:/FJQtAXr No.54394 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You're thinking of the Big Crunch.
Thomas Gold - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:43:08 EST ID:psUbi2cW No.54395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The Big Crunch doesn't necessarily mean another Big Bang though.
Look for the the Big Bounce, or the Cyclic model, OP.
Easy wiki-links because I'm lazy:
Johan Galle - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:22:11 EST ID:GLF+hs85 No.57083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i'm so fucking horny rn

jane, i want to get into your zone and yum you up for days
Edmond Halley - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 19:01:53 EST ID:/PjoztBU No.57084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the oscillating universe theory, where the universe infinitely cycles between big bangs and crunches, makes the most sense to me. ill just believe that until something else is proven. i dont buy the idea of a big freeze
Galileo Galilei - Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:29:32 EST ID:yzfSDg8q No.57093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah. Except time itself originated with the big bang, and it ends with the big freeze. How you gonna escape that?
Mike Brown - Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:24:32 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57094 Ignore Report Quick Reply

there is no big freeze. there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches. time is infinite.
John Riccioli - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:37:15 EST ID:NWuHYIye No.57109 Ignore Report Quick Reply

How would you know that? Evidence we have now points to the opposite, we see distant galaxies accelerating away from us, and they're accelerating at a greater and greater rate as time passes. There's not enough gravitational force, even accounting for dark matter, for a big crunch to occur.

This is my understanding of the topic, anyway.
Charles Bolton - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 20:17:33 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57110 Ignore Report Quick Reply

there is a presumption that magical dark energy is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate yet every experiment performed looking to confirm the existence of dark energy or even dark matter has come up empty handed. thus the cyclical model is supported by an equal amount of evidence. the whole "red-blue" shifted model is in serious question at this point
Russel Hulse - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:43:51 EST ID:efSQObtJ No.57112 Ignore Report Quick Reply
None of that justifies a big crunch model. If we're gonna posit something based on lack of evidence, I'd rather go with space fairies. They're cute.
Charles Bolton - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:29:31 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512336571668.jpg -(32665B / 31.90KB, 1100x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Friedrich von Struve - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 23:36:09 EST ID:2O5lO8M8 No.57123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well I'm not going to make an argument for the Big Crunch because I don't think it will happen, it's Big Freezes all the way down. However, I would make an argument for their nonetheless being an infinite number of Big Bangs, and thus the universe having a cyclic quality without any need for a Big Crunch.

The argument for this is simple, one based on a priori logic rather than a posteriori empiricism, as well as the Copernican principle: our universe, apparently, arose from nothing at all into the universe we perceive today. If we believe in the Big Bang, we must minimally accept this. We must take nothing to mean really nothing, as extension in no qualities of any kind. In this way the moment immediately after the Big Freeze is the same as the moment before the Big Bang -- time ceases to exist for an infinite amount of non-time, because what time is is a measurement of change, and in nothing, there is no change at all.

Because we know it is possible for the universe to arise from nothing, and know it is going back into nothing, and we know that nothingness can exist for an infinite amount of time, it would be a violation of the Copernican principle to assume that our vantage point is the only time ever that nothingness would generate a universe. No, that would imply a violation of causality and us having a privileged perspective, so we must reject it.

If nothing really is nothing, and the universe can come from nothing but also inevitably goes into nothing, then there's nothing about nothing that can stop universes from infinitely eternally being formed out of it. Since there are an infinite number of universes, there will also be an infinite number of identical universes, eventually. Thus, cyclical universe.
Jan Hendrik Oort - Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:52:12 EST ID:JrU5uOl/ No.57124 Ignore Report Quick Reply

like a pac-man screen
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:00:03 EST ID:JaX78I2e No.57125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Henry Russell - Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:08:37 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not cyclical. Like a tree. Or a fractal. Self-similar.

Our universe dies into nothingness. Nothingness gives rise to new big bangs. These big bangs spawn new universes that die into nothingness.... etc. ad infinitum.
William Lassell - Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:37:47 EST ID:xu+ta0+j No.57236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If there are only a finite number of configurations which a given hubble volume can manifest (which is necessary, because there are a finite number of planck lengths within the hubble volume and a finite number of elementary particles & energies) then with an infinite number of alternate universes, eventually the same configuration will appear again (not only once, but an infinite number of times) since the number of possible hubble volume configurations is less than infinite. Each one of these manifestations is one complete 'cycle' although the length of cycles (i.e. the number of permutations between each recurrence of an identical configuration) would always vary.
William de Sitter - Fri, 08 Jun 2018 21:12:09 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I was recently thinking about this following hypothesis (I'm sure I'm not the first who came up with it but wasn't able to find any established writing on the subject)
But you can find plenty of other people posting about this when you google
big rip quarks

Essentially it goes like this:
The expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart superclusters, galaxies, star systems, stars, molecules and eventually atoms.
So long so good.
But once it gets to a scale of a proton something interesting is bound to happen:
If you rip apart quarks the amount of energy which with they are bound together grows proportional to the distance.
If you put in enough "force" new quarks will be created eventually.
This is all fine and dandy if you are dealing with regular forces where the amount of energy required is the same as the amount of quarks "created"
But since dark energy is not bound by these constraints, as I understand it there would be a runaway effect where more and more quarks are generated by each proton.
And what would that then be, right a quark-gluon-plasma!

Essentially what this would boil down to is eventually every proton in the universe will become it's own big-bang and hence it's own universe.
Roger Penrose - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:06:05 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57302 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think this idea is really interesting and would love for someone to actually develop it in a paper.

Here's my concern, as is always my concern whenever someone says a particle or whatever creates its own universe; where does the energy/matter come from? If this quark being ripped apart creates its own universe, with its own particles of all types including quarks, where did these quarks etc. come from? Are they actually physically smaller? (in which case we're stuck in the Incredible Eternally Shrinking Multiverse?) Or what? Is it actually creating the new universe or is it punching a hole to a different section of the M-brane (which might have the energy/particle supply), or something else?

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.