The first simulated image of a black hole, calculated with an IBM 7040 computer using 1960 punch cards and hand-plotted by French astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet in 1978 Pro/Processed

54.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

u/Ohbeejuan Jan 16 '22

That’s how I’ve always sorta thought it all worked. Big Bang, Expansion, Contraction, Big Crunch, rinse repeat. Just intuition, not backed up by anything really.

54

u/HotChickenshit Jan 16 '22

The math on the current expansion of the universe does not agree.

It's Big Rip.

The mind-blowing shit is how localized patches of universal expansion begin looking like big bangs when everything starts flying apart at the speed of light.

26

u/recruz Jan 16 '22

The question is, does every rip constitute a new universe? It stands to reason that’s why we have what’s called, the “observable universe” because we can’t see outside of our rip in space-time. So meaning, that our Big Bang is exactly that, the rip, and each rip begins a new infinity. Thus we will get infinite infinities, until, infinity. Just my stupid guess

24

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

big bang happened in fractions of a second, big rip is much slower -- they are very different just by that alone

19

u/Kepabar Jan 16 '22 edited Jan 16 '22

The thought goes as follows:
The state of the universe that is empty due to the 'big rip' (that is, all fermions decaying into massless particles) is no different from the starting state of our current universe.

It is an empty universe that is filled with massless, and therefore timesless, things. In both universes it is impossible to keep time and so size no longer matters.

A photon traveling a billion lightyears or ten is exactly the same if there are no mechanisms in the universe which are affected by time.

So as our universe decays during the big rip it essentially is 'reset' back to the state of the big bang. From there you just need another big bang trigger.

If that trigger is due to quantum fluctuations or due to some sort of variance in the inflaton field or something else doesn't matter; as long as the physical constants of the universe remain the same, you now have a cylindrical universe system where each aeon starts with a big bang and ends with a big rip but is continuous. Each rip will eventually be followed by a big bang.

16

u/SirStrontium Jan 16 '22

We don’t know anything about the state of the universe before the Big Bang, so you can’t claim it will be “no different” than something we don’t actually understand.

5

u/Kepabar Jan 16 '22 edited Jan 16 '22

Of course not. The whole theory is non falsifiable. We think right now, anyway.

But this is a theory that has been put forward.

1

u/Outrageous-Taro7340 Jan 16 '22

Our current model is definitely falsifiable. So far, it is consistent with observation of the past and present universe.

1

u/Outrageous-Taro7340 Jan 16 '22

We know a great deal about the superinflation before the Big Bang. We have a model that describes what happened that is verified by observation. Yes, we can’t directly observe what happened before, but can’t directly observe the Big Bang either.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Kepabar Jan 16 '22

I’m not sure that this lines up with the current thinking.

The theory was proposed by Roger Penrose about 10 years ago and is called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.

There was an experiment trying to gather evidence for it as recently as 2018ish, although the interpretation of those results is still debated.

The experiment was basically to analyze the CMB for evidence of particular distribution rings of matter during the early universe which could be explained by the effects the previous Aeon would have on the Big Bang event itself.

In either case, these are just theories. That's how science works once you get this far into theoretical physics. Little is certain, but you have to start by dreaming up things that are beyond current observation but also don't conflict with any hard known facts. Then you need to come up with a way for gathering evidence to support this unobservable thing.

It's how science has operated for well over a century now. Scientists were doing such experiments to try and prove the existence of the 'Aether' in the 1800s.

This particular theory doesn't have wide acceptance and may eventually be proven completely off-base. But that's the case for most theories put forth in this field, so par for the course.

Universes are created all the time.

This is no more falsifiable than CCC.

Same goes for String Theory currently, which is why we still have theories which compete with it like QLG.

We’re a branch universe. Our universe probably branches at black holes, which are a white hole to a baby universe. The Big Bang is/was a white hole.

We don't have any way of knowing any of this.

Infact, most in the field agree that white holes are more than likely strictly a mathematical concept and cannot exist in reality as they create several paradoxes if they do. The most basic being that you'd have to find a way to reverse entropy to generate a white hole. That's right, that pesky second law of thermodynamics strikes again!

This is really a sidestep, since the real problem with white holes is that they are just time reversed black holes. For the same reason we don't expect a spaceship that is in pieces on the moon to magically reverse its crash, reassemble itself and fly backwards to return to the launchpad we also don't expect white holes to form naturally.

My point in all this is that high end physics theories about the nature of the universe itself are best taken with an open mind. Never believe you 'know' the answer, because every single theory we've come up with to date will eventually be proven wrong to some extent or another.

It's all fun to talk about though.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Kepabar Jan 16 '22

Sort of. Quantum field fluctuations are constantly happening but they don't create matter from nothing. They cancel themselves out, aside from some rare circumstances.

You may be thinking of virtual particles, which is a mathematical representation of this. They are used as simple representations of field fluctuations when calculating how particles interact.

There is no evidence that they are real, unless some interaction (such as being at the edge of an event horizon) forces them to be real.

2

u/hitner_stache Jan 16 '22

From the perspective of what comes out the other side of the rip it could feel fast.

20

u/grey87delta Jan 16 '22

The “observable universe” is caused by the finite age of the universe combined with the finite speed of light, not the ripping of space time. We can only see so far away because the light from even more distant objects hasn’t reached us yet.

8

u/caillouistheworst Jan 16 '22

And never will, which sucks.

4

u/Larry_Boy Jan 16 '22

I mean, we can see all the way back to the CMBR. How much further do you want to see?

4

u/caillouistheworst Jan 16 '22

I know we can, but because of expansion there’s parts of space we cannot and will never see. I want to see and know it all.

1

u/HotChickenshit Jan 16 '22

Yes, that's what I was getting at; each progressively smaller "patch" of universe that maintains at the 'end' of the Big Rip begins looking like a new universe undergoing a big bang. Every other patch becomes unreachable as they move apart faster than light. So 'our' big rip may birth a (probably?) infinite number of new universes.

The 'hows' get into quantum field theory that I am in no way qualified to discuss intelligently, but that situation was my takeaway from a dive into Big Rip theories.

2

u/recruz Jan 16 '22

It’s a super cool theory. It’s our world version of a “multiverse”

1

u/RiotBoi13 Jan 16 '22

I recently read or saw something about this theory, do you know what it’s called?

2

u/I_Has_A_Hat Jan 16 '22

I propose to you simply this: nothing in the universe ever happens once.

2

u/Seakawn Jan 16 '22

Depends on the size of the universe, which we just don't know and can only speculate on.

If the universe is infinite? Then everything happens infinite times. If it's finite? Then some things may very well only happen once.

E.g., if our universe is infinite, then I exist infinitely far away, in an infinite amount of other locations, because all the same variables came together in the same ways in those locations. But, if our universe is finite, then while life may be abundant across spacetime, I may only exist uniquely right here and right now. I am, after all, a "thing" of the universe--my entire system, my brain and my body.

1

u/PRODSKY22 Jan 17 '22

If the expansion of the universe continues and large structures (stars, planets, black, holes) get ripped apart to the point where only fundamental particles remain, wouldn’t the quarks (wich to my understanding only appear in pairs since the energy required to split a pair is equal to the energy required to make a quark meaning you’d just end up with 2 pairs) just multiply until the space is filled again ?

14

u/PM_ME_GARFIELD_NUDES Jan 16 '22

I think there are many aspects of the universe that we will never have the ability to verify or even justify. I would put money on your theory, it seems like a pretty natural and self explanatory cycle. But I don’t think we’ll ever be able to collect enough data or make enough observations to prove this is the case.

5

u/AndrewJS2804 Jan 16 '22

All existing science suggests there can never be a big crunch, that concept predates observations of the universe acceleratingnits expansion, when people thought gravity must be slowing the expansion and thus could stop and reverse it at some point in the future.

There are no past universes and there's nothing to suggest there will ever be another. This is it, we exist in the very early part of the warm universe and there's only so much time ahead of us before everything not local dissapears over the horizon and everything that's left goes cold and dead for all of eternity, the universe doesn't operate on terms that are friendly to your concepts of right and wrong.

23

u/thanatossassin Jan 16 '22

I think the larger issue is the search for a universal starting or stopping point, and even your point of view assumes finality, "This is it." I don't get it, you're trashing a theory with idea that we don't know, to then just act as if we do know. Pick a lane.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

Our current universe is actually a pocket of 'newniverse' created by the Old Ones, who fought against entropy of their own universe by using the power of dark antimatter to create a shell of strong force, to contain our Big Bang and reseed themselves into this universe. The shell is dense and strong, but can't stop the Void outside the shell from attracting the matter of this universe (much like osmosis) which is why our universe is expanding. The various rates of expansion are due to weakness in the shell, the weaker areas attracts our mass faster than the stronger.

It's unknown at this time if the Old Ones will be willing or able to create another newniverse, or if humans will evolve past the Great Filter or develop the necessary technologies in time and space to create another.

Just figured you'd like to know.

9

u/Ohbeejuan Jan 16 '22

Duly noted

4

u/RiotBoi13 Jan 16 '22

Damn man, don’t have to take it so personally

3

u/m4tt1111 Jan 16 '22

Mf took a theory about the end of the universe personally

2

u/recruz Jan 16 '22

Maybe there doesn’t have to be a single Big Crunch to rule them all. There could be just, sufficiently large crunches (super-duper massive black hole?) that essentially gets the process started all over again

0

u/cheapdrinks Jan 16 '22

What was before the big bang tho

2

u/DnDVex Jan 16 '22

The small bang

1

u/Has_Recipes Jan 16 '22

The universe came down with a bad case of acceleratingitis.

-1

u/Maybeabandaid Jan 16 '22

I know not if the world ends in fire or ice, but if I had a choice, fire would be nice.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/thanatossassin Jan 16 '22

Sounds like you need a bit more time to work this out, because it's paradoxical with the idea that "it's intentional." That infers bias towards creationism.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

[deleted]

0

u/thanatossassin Jan 16 '22

there's no bias - that's...just what we are.

You've came to a conclusion without all the facts. That's bias. It doesn't require you to be told how to think or believe, but it requires you to stop and settle on an idea and working to simply prove it rather than explore beyond and possibly disprove it.

You deny it's creationism yet spell out creationism, albeit not of biblical definition and maybe more of something that fits in with the Ending of Evangelion, it's still bias towards intelligent design.

If that's the case, you have bias and won't recognize it, there's no point in discussing this further.

0

u/xXCzechoslovakiaXx Jan 16 '22

“I” didn’t exist before I was born. My matter did but my memories my thoughts my consciousness didn’t. Consciousness isn’t “created,” it’s just repurposed things that already exist.

Idk how you don’t know basic laws of the universe but it’s pretty funny

Also your theory at the end is a horrible take I won’t even get into.

1

u/hypermelonpuff Jan 16 '22

so which is it then? are you, or are you not the matter? if you are, there's no difference. dont talk about "repurpose" there's no "repurpose" that implies there's any boundary being crossed.

so then do you intend to tell me that memories arent real? youd be saying THOUGHTS arent real as well. either that, or they're woven into the atoms of the universe itself. that its an inherent capability of the universe.

you cant even get your shit straight. "i didnt exist but also im just things that already existed." you're fucking kidding me right now, right? you cant say "im the thoughts not the matter" and also "i am nothing but what the matter became" because by doing so youd be saying...

oh...oh no...

that you have a soul!

or that you always existed, dipshit.

2

u/xXCzechoslovakiaXx Jan 16 '22

So you have never gotten close to the philosophy of consciousness in your life. That’s all I gotta know to stop talking to you. I had those nonsensical ideas when I was 11 and I sure hope you’re 11 right now