Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big bang, again and again?
Fringan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 9 (89146)
02-27-2004 8:19 PM


Hello!
I'm all new to this forum, actually I discovered it today and I'm looking forward to hours and hours of reading and learning facts and of peoples opinios in different matters.
I'm not sure if this has been brought up here before but I have been thinking of the beginning and the end of the universe. Lets assume our universe was born out of a big bang, alot of hydrogen formed stars, the stars produced helium and other matter, exploded and formed new stars and planets. Some stars collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes who eats all the matter it comes close to.
I heard somewhere there should be around 10 million black holes in the milky way by now and a new one forms about once every 1000 years. It's not that important how often they form but I've been thinking that sooner or later when most stars died and there are more black holes then you can imagine. Shouldnt the black holes eat up all "loose" matter and attract eachother? In the end the universe would consist of only black holes who finally all has attracted eachother and contain all of the matter and energy available?
I've thought it might be a cycle, that this is the state where the universe end but also begins in a new big bang? Ofcourse I have been inspired by the hinduist belief that kosmos is created and destroyed in an endless cycle.
I haven't read up much on this, I just wonder if the thought state of the universe in its very end is different or alike the thought state of the universe in the beginning, before big bang.
I think that if the universe was created and destroyed in cycles it could mean there was never a creation or beginning. That it has always been and will always be?
Also try to bare with my english
/Fringan
[This message has been edited by Fringan, 02-27-2004]
[This message has been edited by Fringan, 02-28-2004]

Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole--it's structure, origin and development. I won't answer all the questions Hawking raises concerning cosmology, but I will try to make comments on many of them. I caution here that you should not confuse cosmology with cosmetology, the art of beautifying the hair, skin, and nails!
-Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer III

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-28-2004 7:13 PM Fringan has replied
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 02-29-2004 12:39 AM Fringan has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 9 (89308)
02-28-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fringan
02-27-2004 8:19 PM


Hi Fringan,
Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me that your labouring under the weight of at least one misconception - an easy one to make - which is that if there were very many black holes then the structure of the Universe would be fundamentally different. You see, the gravitational force produced by any object is proportional to its mass, whether it be a black hole, a single star or a supercluster of galaxies.
If the Sun were to collapse to a black hole tomorrow, the planets would still go about the same orbits (granted it might get a bit colder though). The only difference as far as the gravitational field is concerned is that the Sun would have an event horizon, from which nothing could escape.
So when you say that black holes would "eat up all loose matter", its not strictly true, as they wouldn't eat up any more than normal stars of the same mass.
Incidentally, when you say:
Fringan writes:
I heard somewhere there should be around 10 million black holes in the milky way by now and a new one forms about once every 1000 years.
..could you direct me to where you read this? (Not saying you're wrong, just interested).
I was also going to write about how the general scientific consensus was that the Universe would expand forever but after having read this I think its best to keep schtum.
We can now wait for the real astrophysicists on the forum to tell me just how outdated this all is....
PE
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-28-2004]

Mrs Hardy: "And how is Mrs Laurel?"
Stanley: "Oh, fine thank you."
Mrs Hardy: "I'd love to meet her some time."
Stanley: "Neither do I, too."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fringan, posted 02-27-2004 8:19 PM Fringan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Fringan, posted 02-29-2004 12:22 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Fringan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 9 (89348)
02-29-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Primordial Egg
02-28-2004 7:13 PM


My source about the amount of the black holes took me a while to find but after some thinking I remembered I got this information from the BBC documentary called "Space" (Hyperspace (TV Mini Series 2001) - IMDb).
About the black holes eating up all matter, I understand the same mass has the same gravity. However, a star will explode or burn out sooner or later while a black hole (as I understand it) never burns out or explodes. So over a long period of time a black hole would still "eat" as much as a sun would but it keeps on doing it forever. Therefore, at some point, it's pull would be stronger then a stars since it could keep eating longer then a star?
Also, since new black holes form every now and then, more and more of the available matter should be trapped in one over time and finally most of it would be in the black holes? I know I am yet to understand the curvation of space around really heavy objects but I imagine that black holes like all other bodies should attract eachother aswell. Thats why I keep thinking in zillions of years all matter would finally end up in a single black hole.
Perhaps black holes do explode or in some way "give back" all the matter it has eaten at some point? In that case I'd like to be pointed to where I can read more about it. Maybe all the above is all wrong because I havent even thought about the expansion/contraction of the universe.
Oh well.. 06:25 AM here in Sweden and way past my bedtime. Lets see if I read this post tomorrow and wonder what I was thinking
[This message has been edited by Fringan, 02-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-28-2004 7:13 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 4 of 9 (89350)
02-29-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fringan
02-27-2004 8:19 PM


Yes... this is my Idea on the Universe......that the Universe has always been here in some way or another... This is called the Contracting Universe Idea. Which means a Big Bang will happen again and again Like a never ending cycle.
although I like to call myself an agnostic (as I accept there might be a god of some kind) This is the idea I like the most
[This message has been edited by DC85, 02-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fringan, posted 02-27-2004 8:19 PM Fringan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-29-2004 1:08 AM DC85 has not replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2004 12:31 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 9 (89353)
02-29-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by DC85
02-29-2004 12:39 AM


On and On,Round and Round...
As a Christian Believer, I always had a problem with this theory of endless rebirth. If a blade of grass has such a life force that it can grow in a crack in a cement sidewalk, that shows the purpose of life. If humans survive in hostile conditions, if life is found after atolls were nuked, all of this points to a purpose. Life exists, and exists forcefully! If the cycle was endless, expanding and collapsing, what would be the point? Sidelined once told me that the point was not the dancers in this endless cosmic game. The point was the dance. Well, to some, the point is the creation eternal. To me, however, the point is the Creator eternal. I guess that is where I differ from some views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 02-29-2004 12:39 AM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Fringan, posted 02-29-2004 7:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
Fringan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 9 (89380)
02-29-2004 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
02-29-2004 1:08 AM


Re: On and On,Round and Round...
Phatboy writes:
Life exists, and exists forcefully! If the cycle was endless, expanding and collapsing, what would be the point?
Thats something I never understood. Why must there be a point? I'm an agnostic to the point I think some "consious force" might have set the laws of nature. I think the whole "having a point" thing is invented by man, because some of us think we are so amazingly intelligent and fantastic that there have to be a point we are here
I think not, however thats OT for this forum. I don't think that the model of universe as a never ending cycle of destruction and creation must leave out a creator of some kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-29-2004 1:08 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Stipes, posted 03-21-2004 9:47 PM Fringan has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2004 12:33 AM Fringan has not replied

  
Stipes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 9 (93761)
03-21-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fringan
02-29-2004 7:48 AM


Re: On and On,Round and Round...
This is my general understanding with a relatively new theory put out by the infamous Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking is intriguid by the black holes because it is a location of a lot of mass in a very small volume. Somehow, I don't know how or understand really how this happens, that when matter gets sucked to the point of singularity the matter just kinda sheds off. (This is according to another guy on a science channel documentary by the way.)
He called this Hawking Radiation and this helps with the inconsistancies of the Particle Theory and Relativity. You see if you were in chemistry you went with the particle theory, if you were in physics you went with relativity. Relativity couldn't describe actions of particles, and particle theory couldn't describe heavenly bodies.
This Hawking Radiation somehow is the answer. It is a VERY dence molecule. So I thought I would just tell you what I know, and if you are interested I bet you could figure out more online. Could this universe just build up with all kinds of Hawking Radiation, starting a birth of a star, but at since there is no fussion it just implodes and is the big bang all over again? I don't know, I just kinda made that up. I don't want you to think my soul purpose was to disprove your beliefe. There was just a recent finding in the "Theory of Everything" by Stephen Hawking that adresses this issue. Isn't that just a really cool theory name?
Anyways thought I would let you know. Good luck with your findings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fringan, posted 02-29-2004 7:48 AM Fringan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 9 (93782)
03-22-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by DC85
02-29-2004 12:39 AM


ekpyrotic
check out the branes behind this story
branes and repeating universes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 02-29-2004 12:39 AM DC85 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 9 (93783)
03-22-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fringan
02-29-2004 7:48 AM


Re: On and On,Round and Round...
an endlessly recurring universe is part of the Hindu faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fringan, posted 02-29-2004 7:48 AM Fringan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024