Black Crunch jams Universal cycle [Cosmology]

Nature Magazine ^ | 23 Decemeber 2002 | PHILIP BALL

[PatrickHenry]

Space might end up dark, thick and boring.

The Universe is not as bouncy as some think, say two physicists. If a Big Crunch follows the Big Bang, it may get stuck that way for ever¹.

A fluid of black holes would bung up space. There would be nothing to drive another Big Bang, and nowhere else to go. The Universe would be, you might say, stuffed.

In a bouncing universe, all the matter currently flying apart slows until it reverses and falls towards a Big Crunch. Some physicists think this could ignite another Big Bang, in an unending sequence of expansion and contraction.

An idea called M-theory suggests how the switch from crunch to bang could happen². The details depend on the shape of space: whether it is infinite and flat, or finite and curved like the surface of a balloon or a doughnut.

Thomas Banks of Rutgers University, New Jersey, and Willy Fischler of the University of Texas at Austin have considered a flat, infinite space in which particles get ever closer and ever denser.

In a space with such features, the smallest kinks in density are amplified into black holes, the densest objects in the Universe. So the whole of space-time would congeal into a very lumpy soup - a black crunch.

"We don't really know what this fluid is made out of," Fischler admits. But he and Banks argue that it may reach a pressure at which it cannot become any denser. At this point, the speed of sound equals the speed of light. Deadlock results.

No theory can cope with a Big Crunch. Because of this, says Fischler, the analysis that he and Banks have performed remains speculative. And a doughnut-shaped Universe could meet a quite different fate, he adds.

References:

1. Banks, T. & Fishler, W. Black Crunch. Preprint http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0212113, (2002). |Article|
2. Khoury, J., Ovrut, B. A., Seiberg, N., Steinhardt, P. J. & Turok, N. From Big Crunch to Big Bang. Preprint http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0108187, (2002). |Article|
[See the original article for links in the footnotes]

[RadioAstronomer]

An average carpenter could figure it.

I agree completely!

[Aracelis]

your attempt shows how long you've been out of school.

Dollars to donuts, this kid doesn't even have a clue what the word stochastic means.

[Aracelis]

i know my abilities. other wise, i wouldnt be so damned bull headed. i am sorry, but your story doesnt move me.

Ok, kid...let me give this to you straight. You are dealing with professors and professional scientists, NOT the average Joe-flunky that you likely have successfully bullsh*tted for years with your great "intelligence". Got it? Good.

One more thing: you are an evil-mannered, arrogant snot. Grow up.

[MacDorcha]

"A problem like, "there's a 10-foot ladder propped at a 60-degree angle against a house; how high does it reach?" is quite beyond most freshmen"

you mean side-angle-side? thats a 30-60-90 triangle, so lets see... 5 feet away from bulding... 10 cubed root... 8.6 something or other feet.... up

[MacDorcha]

as for my intellect, MENSA says im in the top .5% of the world's iqs. but far be it for me to question authorities on such matters. so, you can either "MENSA may be wrong" so i may say "professionals who haven't been there may be wrong" or, you can say "MENSA is right," and in which case, i still have arguing room. dont trifle with me. im by no means an average person.

[Aracelis]

dont trifle with me. im by no means an average person

Thank you for proving my point.

[MacDorcha]

stochastic

ill give you the short. it means it involves randomness. next?

[MacDorcha]

i never said i didnt need to grow up, i said you need to be put in your place. you still dont HAVE a point

[Aracelis]

i said you need to be put in your place

Yawn! Those of us in Mensa at the top 0.1% are bored with you.

[RadioAstronomer]

i never said i didnt need to grow up, i said you

Try using (I) instead of (i) when referring to yourself in a sentence.

[MacDorcha]

excellent statement. yes, you can find them both that way. i must admit however, that i slept much of the parabola chapters, and didnt care for them in 9th grade. you may refresh me if you like. it only helps to know. (no, im not being asinine to you, please teach me, i forgot.)

[MacDorcha]

funny, you understood my statement... i dont change my postings here. you know what i meant, and thats the point of language.

[MacDorcha]

then go to bed.

[Moonman62]

I've read -- this is 2nd hand only -- that back in the 1930s, someone named Tolman showed that entropy increase was inevitable for a continuously oscillating universe. The reason I'm dubious is that I don't know where the "lost" energy/information would go. It's all got to be preserved in a crunch for yet another performance of the cosmic show. Or so it seems to me.

Energy doesn't get lost or go anywhere outside our universe. It simply gets redistributed very evenly, so that work becomes impossible.

[RadioAstronomer]

excellent statement. yes, you can find them both that way. i must admit however, that i slept much of the parabola chapters, and didnt care for them in 9th grade. you may refresh me if you like. it only helps to know. (no, im not being asinine to you, please teach me, i forgot.)

Ummm.... This is not the time or place to teach elementary math. I suggest you buy a good book on math and also one on grammar.

[MacDorcha]

"Energy doesn't get lost or go anywhere outside our universe. It simply gets redistributed very evenly, so that work becomes impossible. "

in such a case, is it safe to say that the universe would simply cease at some point? no expand, contract, up or down. no vibration at all? how would we know when we reached that state? as eternity would pass without our knwing... could we be jumpstarted by another event shedding energy into our existance? and we would start again, without having known we stopped? could this have happened already? hmm.... im not going to get sleep tonight.....

[RadioAstronomer]

funny, you understood my statement... i dont change my postings here. you know what i meant, and thats the point of language.

The problem is (like it or not), you are judged by you posts (grammar included). All that is available here is the ability to communicate using the written word.

[RadioAstronomer]

ok, i was being nice.... now you can shove it.

Why? Is it because I am not in the mood to try and teach you what you slept through? (your words, not mine)