What if our universe has big bangs and crunches but still never goes away. What if our universe if more Newtonian than we think, it just may experience a little creation and destruction along its evolutionary path...? ------------------ We live, we die, WHO CARES! -Double Overdrive
That seems reasonable to me, and I'm not quite sure why, as I can't really get a mental grasp on infinity. Opposingly, I can't get a grasp on a big band beginning either. Could you educate me a little concerning what Newton thinks? ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
I agree. Tommy Dorsey is god. The universe indeed began with a big band. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
DO, What you're talking about is one of the three models of the universe, which depends on how much mass there is. Basically, the universe is expanding from the big bang. This expansion force is opposed by gravity. The more mass, the greater this opposing force. When scientists say that "99% of the matter in the universe is unaccounted for", they mean the amount needed for these forces to balance out exactly. So here are the three cases: 1) There is not enough mass. The universe will then expand forever, never stopping and in the end every star will die out. 2) There is exactly enough mass. Then at the universe will assymtopically(sp?) reach an equillibrium point (It's easier to show by graphs). Cosmologists like this theory because a lot of their variables reduce down to 1, which is very nice and easy. 3) There is more mass, making gravitational force greater than expansion. Then the universe will at some point collapse and we'll go through a Big Crunch and maybe repeat the process of Big Bang again. Number three is the situation you were talking about, DO, but unfortunately most astronomers don't think this will pan out and new theories are coming out right now that point to case one. It might even be that our universe is accelerating. Even if it did crunch, there would really be no evolution, as you mentioned. Everything would revert back to its primordial parts and a new reality would be created with a new set of physical laws that has nothing to do with the old set. As far as Newton was concerned, he never had anything to say about this, it's just that we can apply his original equations. In Newton's time, tbhe universe was believed to be static. It wasn't until this century that Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, which is why we named th constant after him and the telescope. Lori, the best way to grasp the infinite is to get away from a "God's eye view". We like to see ourselves above or outside what we conceptualize, but that's impossible with infinity. It's a major paradigm shift of thought, but once you do it, it becomes simpler to grasp. If you want, I can give you a nice conceptual model of how to think of the universe as infinite.
Hey D.O. Thought you might find this interesting... http://physics.stanford.edu/~linde/ Besides other neat stuff like movies, it's got a link to the accompanying Scientific American article, which is at: http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398linde.html ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 08, 1999).]
Our universe is not infinite it is round with distinct edges. It is a seed in the outer darkness a room in a house you mite say. Bible - Code "King James Version" ONLY Rev 11:1 start at the 7th letter "R" count in 12 letters "A" -12- "O" -12- "N" -12- "I" -12- "A" -12- "L" For a total of 3 words made up 7 letter with a foundation of 12 3=Father Son & Holy Gooiest. 7=The 7 spirits of God 12= The 12 tribes & The Foundations of the church. R, A, O'Nial Wizz
I like this topic! What would a universe look like with the following assumptions/characteristics: 1.Time had no beginning, so is infinite; 2.The universe has no physical distance limits, so one could go an infinite distance in any one direction, and not return to the starting point; 3.The universe has no limit on the quantity of mass and energy; 4.Multiple Big Bangs are occurring at an infinite number of places; 5.At an infinite number of places in the universe, galaxies are converging on an already huge "black hole", soon to reach Big Bang mass; 6.After a Big Bang in one area, galaxies and other mass/energy are still converging on the area, imparting rotational energy to the expanding mass/energy; 7.Some Big Bangs would have the mass/energy to collapse again; 8.Big Bangs with low mass/energy expand until individual mass/energy elements are captured by a nearby "Big Bang convergence area" (destined to be a Big Bang)? I would call this a "New Steady State" theory. ------------------ Bruce Harrington
Double: So far as evoltion goes, there's one possibility.... it's not "evolutionary" in a strict sense, but it might satisfy your hopes. The idea is that Alan Guth's inflationary model allows for a stochastically random set of universes to be brought forth by an equal number of black holes, it's been posited that there could be a selection effect brought on by a tendancy for the new universes to align their Higgs fields with the properties of the parent universe. This doesn't yield a cloning of the praent universe, but neither does it bring up a stochastic set, the results are reminiscent of the environmental selection effect on evolution. Steve: Sp- asymptotic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Steady: Your first three axioms describe the Plasma Cosmology; I know only a little about it. It doesn't seem to be discredited, but it hasn't gained much acceptance either. The fourth axiom assumes that a Big Bang requires source mass in order to create the universe. I'm not sure that it's needed, but if it can be used, then the results would likely end up as a new universe whose dimensions are orthogonal to the infinite parent's dimensions (and likely to its siblings' dimensions). 5: is there a Big Bang critical mass? Inflationary theorists have considered masses ranging from 10 pounds down to microgram scale. 6: could the infalling galaxies interact with the bubbles' membranes? ------------------ Este est percepi - to be is to be perceived. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -R.
Isn't there already big bangs and crunches throughout the universe, even though we can't detect them?
Itcmmdr, There a few of us who believe so. Time will tell. Hope I live long enough. Steady State - It's where we're AT! [This message has been edited by steadystate (edited March 04, 2000).]
