I Same state as in the Big Bang in a collapsing universe?

AI Thread Summary
In a collapsing universe scenario, the final moments of a Big Crunch would not closely resemble the conditions of the Big Bang due to significant gravitational clumping that occurs over time, resulting in a highly non-uniform state. Critics of oscillating universe models argue that increasing entropy and inhomogeneity prevent a return to original Big Bang conditions. Nobel laureate Roger Penrose proposes "conformal cyclic cosmology," suggesting that infinite expansions could lead to low densities, allowing the universe to reset without a Big Crunch. This concept implies that the universe can periodically behave like it is dense and hot again, effectively mimicking multiple Big Bangs. The discussion highlights the complexities of cosmic evolution and the challenges in reconciling entropy with cyclical models of the universe.
Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
Is it possible that if the universe collapses, it reaches the same state as in its beginning?
Suppose the universe were to eventually collapse in a Big Crunch [1]. How closely could the universe's final moments resemble those at the beginning of the universe? Could the universe return to its original state exactly in some kind of "Big Crunch" or "Big Bounce" model?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
 
Space news on Phys.org
Suekdccia said:
Suppose the universe were to eventually collapse in a Big Crunch [1]. How closely could the universe's final moments resemble those at the beginning of the universe?
Not close at all. In such a universe, the Big Bang has uniform density everywhere to a very good approximation, i.e., no gravitational clumping has occurred. But over the history of the universe, gravitational clumping does occur--the matter clumps into galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually into black holes. So the Big Crunch will be highly non-uniform, very different from the Big Bang.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, 256bits and Drakkith
This has indeed been a criticism aimed at "oscillating universe" models, there would seem to be a constant increase in entropy (in the form of greater inhomogeneity in the matter, energy, and gravity) that could not "reboot" the same Big Bang conditions. It should be noted, however, that Nobel laureate Roger Penrose feels he has an answer to that: the "conformal cyclic cosmology" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology). It's pretty technical, but the basic idea seems to be that you don't need Big Crunches, you just need infinite expansions to achieve such low densities that there is, in some sense, nothing to anchor down the space (not his way of saying it, but it's what I'm taking from it), allowing for what he calls "conformal rescaling." I think the essence of it is that the universe periodically loses track of its own size scale, and acts like it is once again very dense and hot. The entropy problem goes away in this rescaling event, and like waves lapping at the shore, you get behavior that acts like one Big Bang after another without any Big Crunches in between. I can't speak to its plausibility, Roger Penrose knows more GR in any one of his nerve ganglions than I know in my whole brain.
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top