JLN ...it's possible, and imaginable... which is my point.
Interesting thought, but since there are numerous collapsing singularities (I think), would that suggest multiple Big Bangs. Unlikely, since the multiple collapsing singularies occur within a single extant universe. Am I overlooking something?
What I mean is, if you can imagine watching a film of the formation of a black hole, where enormous mounts of matter condense to a single point, then watch the same film in reverse, it's a simple way of imagining how the bang could have happened.
The reversing of the formation of a black hole cannot explain the inflation of the early universe.
No, they are different. I'm only suggesting an analogy to aid imagination.
Am I right in thinking you prefer to rely on magic satt_fs ?
I admit that the inflation at the earliest stage of the universe is a magic, in a sense, to explain the flat universe which is observed currently.
Eorl, I do understand that your "reversal model" is merely an analogy. I think that by also focusing on the limits of our analogies we might learn something, or at least generate new questions, meaningful or not. For example, a collapsing singularity does not have the implosive power of the Big Bang's explosion. If that is so, is it hypothetically-theoretically interesting?
Something came from nothing!
God, which exists outside of the universe, caused the universe to come into existence and injected into it that spark of energy (the big bang) from which all matter has evolved.
I AM: GOD !
I Am: All that Was !
I Am: All that Can Be !
I Am: All that Is !
I Am: All that Is Not, that is !
I Am: Law !
I Am: Cause !
I Am: Affect !
I Am: Effect !
I AM !
i am God !!
i am: a Result of God in dispersion !!
i am: a Particle of God in distribution !!
i am: a Purpose of God in dispersion !!
i am: an Accumulator of Experience of God !!
i am !!
We Are God !!!
i am Because I AM !!!
we are Because I AM !!!
WE ARE !!!
Whose the author? Please don't say God, unless you mean it.
JL, why do you think the implosion would not be as great as the explosion? Can you imagine the force with which the last "bit" of the universe would meet the entire universe's singularity in the final moment of a "big crunch"? I'm only guessing but I think it would be pretty much equal to it's reverse in terms of the forces involved. I'm pretty sure that's what Hawking saw in his head (but I'll do some research).
This is kinda relevant :
Quote:Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb.
However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
Stephen Hawking
copied without permission from here:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
A theory does not replace a law. With all due respect to Hawkins, it can't be proved and he can't demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Energy is false. His theory that all the physical laws are changed are plausible but not necessarily true. Mathematics are just quantitative logic processes. Hawkins could be in error. We have lots of time to figure thinks out. The sun does not exhaust its fuel for another billion years. There is no rush. There is even a chap here akaMechsmith who theorizes that gravity may play a role in the red shift of the galaxies. Unfortunately he doesn't know how to calculate it.
agreed talk. I believe we are talking about possibilities here.
