Cyclic Universe

One of my friends and I like talking a lot about theoretical science and the other day we think we stumbled upon something huge. What if the entire universe is just a cycle?

We started with this. What would happen if a black hole and an antimatter black hole collided? You would be left with 2 near infinite masses (well that’s how my friend likes to phrase it. But no matter how you look at it it’s still an immensely huge mass) trapped converting itself into energy and material continuously. At any given time in this process there either is colossal mass or there was and will be again within nanoseconds, meaning that more materials would get pulled in. Then theoretically either by random chance or by the unheard of amounts of force involved, loose energy would become trapped in this as well.

At the end of this we are left with the entire universe trapped within itself. By law of probability eventually the matter would end up on one side of the collection with antimatter on the other, and the large quantity of energy in the center would decompress slightly causing the entire system to disperse rapidly, or in other words explode. Sound a bit familiar? It’s a bit reworked version of the Big Bang. But this would imply a universe in existence before what is viewed as time 0. This whole process would obliterate everything before it, in every sense of the word. This also means that every physical scrap of evidence of how things actually began is long since gone.

Any flaws with the theory? How long did it take for our universe to be here? When did it all actually begin? How did it begin? Can it end? Can this prove or disprove the existence a god? Could there be relics of previous universes out there? Feel free to discuss this as much as you like, but please keep your posts constructive. I don’t want this locked by people posting "you’re a genius" "This theory sucks" etc.

 

Very interesting theory. I think it is pretty sound except for the possibility that the universe is going to expand infinitely and so a cycle would not be possible. But you are right in saying that everything before would be destroyed and in essence a new universe would be created.

I think something like the universe can never be understood by beings as limited in their existance as we are. It is at least very difficult (or impossible) for us to think of something as infinite as the universe (or anything infinite for that matter).

I have more but lunch calls =_=

 

That's a pretty interesting theory that does somewhat go along with the Big Bang Theory, as you had mentioned. It is believed now that there are also more Universes out there than just our own and as our universe expands, it may yet run into another universe, just as galaxies may collide with other galaxies. It is obvious that if the Big Bang Theory or yours is to stand up to the test, that there was a point of origin and there was a mass collection of temperature and pressure exerted so that as the area cooled it spread out. In the end, this isn't too different from the BBT. The difference is that this is with two black holes and matter being forced in a cycle between them of matter and anti-matter.

The only thing really that would be questioned here (well it all would be questioned but the only thing that stands out immensely as a strong debate) is the validity of saying it's a "Cyclic Universe" because the only way that could work that I could think of, since universes expand and we pretty well know that for a fact with how we can monitor our own and the galaxies etc are not stagnant, is to say that the universe expands to a certain point where that energy becomes lost and pale, and then something kicks it off again to create another black hole incident to recreate the conditions of birthing a new universe from within one that would be 'dying' in essence.

I'm sure there are flaws which could be found with a bigger equation of this and studies of black holes but at the same time, perhaps not with the right math being done and conditions being met. There are calculations done for the Big Bang that do hold up mathematically to show expansion rates and such and with monitoring of expansion they hold up so well. For this theory, I suppose you'd either use those or have to design up your own to make it work within the realm of math and to coincide with how now we still see growth. Needless to say, the rates of acceleration of expansion would have to be enormous after a time of 'conception' of the matter being gathered to one point via the black holes.

As for proving the existence of God, I would say it neither proves nor disproves the existence of such deity. It is a theory on the universe's creation and done through a scientific standpoint, I would hope. The only thing it proves is that people's views of such a paranormal and extreme being may be incorrect, as well as how they have dated events such as the 7 day creation issue. It does not show whether there is an entity mover out there or not in the least. It just dismisses notions of how things are presented as people knew them 2000 some years ago. As with any scientific theory, it would be studied but the equation of God would not be in there since that is an unknown.

 

The main reason I threw in the god question was because of this. One of the main reasons people hold their faith is because of the logic that we shouldn't be able to exist without the guidance of a higher being. But under this theory there are literally infinite trials, so how could possibly not exist?


And with the infinite expansion counter point, doesn’t gravity null it altogether? With gravity there are two main possibilities. 1) The universe will expand until gravity eventually causes the universe to pull into itself. or 2) The universe expands until it gets attracted enough to another vicinity to prevent situation 1 from being a possibility. Then this process would take place between both universes or the second universe would simply take materials from our own. This is of course assuming that the second universe has similar properties to our own.

 

The theories that state that the universe will expand forever base it on the question of is gravity strong enough to hold the universe together? That is where dark matter and dark energy are thrown in ._.

The reason the universe is expanding in the first place is because all things seek to reach the most stable state (maximum entrophy?). This means that all the matter and energy in the universe will be spread equally to as small an amount as possible. This will of course mean there is not enough energy in one place to sustain anything, never mind life.

 

Yes, there really is no way one central point is going to be there for all eternity as the 'core'. We also do not yet totally have a graspable knowledge of all dark matter does since it is an energy we cannot totally examine yet, other than knowing it does matter in the equations. It's very interesting and good point, Bunterx.

 

The ****ogy I like to combine with claims that gravity isn't strong enough is this. If i were to take a pencil and continually tap it on a table would it eventually eat through it? physically probably not, the pencil will destroy itself, but there would be a good dent in the table. But unlike said pencil gravity isn't consumed (well as far as we know anyway) so its free to continue until the job is done. It may be weak but when given enough time it will happen.

I won't even bother to touch on that second paragraph, I don't know enough on that theory to try and confirm or deny it.