- #1
01i
- 4
- 0
Why is it considered the 'end of the universe' when the stars go dark??
As I understand it, there were two main theories accepted regarding the expansion of the universe after the big bang. One of them assumed that the expansion would start to contract, the other that it would continue to accelerate until all the stars die out leaving the cold black of space. The recent documentaries I've watched suggest that the evidence for the latter is more likely, and that it's quite a sad ending.
What I don't understand is why the stars going dark is considered the end, rather than fully taking things to their ultimate conclusion.
When the stars go out their 'dead bodies' will still continue to orbit the black holes in the center of their galaxy. It stands to reason that eventually the black holes at the centre of each 'dead' galaxy will finish consuming all the 'dead' stars. Admittedly they'll probably collide with a few other galaxies on the way, adding some new stars to the mix prolonging the process, but eventually all the black holes will have eaten all the 'dead' stars in the 'dead' universe.
Once that happens it still isn't the end. There is still the endless void of space, and the super-massive black holes that once were galaxies.
Based on the idea that the rules of the sub-atomic world allow for a small enough object to appear from nothing, or jump from one place to another, it is not unreasonable to assume that these black holes (no longer tied down by a load of stars) might also be able to act this way. After all, the recent arguments suggesting the big-bang singularity could appear from nothing use exactly the same sub-atomic rules reasoning.
Even if that's not the case and a supermassive black hole untethered by stars can't jump around, they should still be able to be attracted through gravity to the other black holes in the void of the 'dead' universe. Eventually it would make sense that all the black holes end up as one huge black hole containing the majority of (if not all of) the matter originally released by the big bang.
Even if a few black holes escape, there are still (as I understand it) tiny black holes appearing from nowhere all around. They have to leave 'something' behind when they dissipate that could - over time - be consumed by the ultimate black hole until it reaches the density equal to the entire amount of matter discharged by the big bang.
That leaves a situation very similar to just before the big bang singularity exploded, and pretty much identical to the ending of the contracting universe idea.
On a related note, this time going back to the ultimate beginning. A Stephen Hawkin documentary recently argued that the big bang singularity appeared from nothing fully formed at full density. While I'm sure that wouldn't have been argued if not possible, it seems a little strange that fully formed big bang dense singularities have not appeared since.
However, if you have an empty endless void of nothing, and a rule that allows tiny enough objects to spontaniously exist out of nothingness, the same gradual combination of black holes eating each other in the void can evenqtually create the density for a big bang singularity over time, from the tiny black holes that supposedly appear all around us.
As I've never seen or read anyone making the same arguments, and as it seems like a pretty logical next step to take, my question is what's wrong with my logic?
~ Oliver Piotrowski
As I understand it, there were two main theories accepted regarding the expansion of the universe after the big bang. One of them assumed that the expansion would start to contract, the other that it would continue to accelerate until all the stars die out leaving the cold black of space. The recent documentaries I've watched suggest that the evidence for the latter is more likely, and that it's quite a sad ending.
What I don't understand is why the stars going dark is considered the end, rather than fully taking things to their ultimate conclusion.
When the stars go out their 'dead bodies' will still continue to orbit the black holes in the center of their galaxy. It stands to reason that eventually the black holes at the centre of each 'dead' galaxy will finish consuming all the 'dead' stars. Admittedly they'll probably collide with a few other galaxies on the way, adding some new stars to the mix prolonging the process, but eventually all the black holes will have eaten all the 'dead' stars in the 'dead' universe.
Once that happens it still isn't the end. There is still the endless void of space, and the super-massive black holes that once were galaxies.
Based on the idea that the rules of the sub-atomic world allow for a small enough object to appear from nothing, or jump from one place to another, it is not unreasonable to assume that these black holes (no longer tied down by a load of stars) might also be able to act this way. After all, the recent arguments suggesting the big-bang singularity could appear from nothing use exactly the same sub-atomic rules reasoning.
Even if that's not the case and a supermassive black hole untethered by stars can't jump around, they should still be able to be attracted through gravity to the other black holes in the void of the 'dead' universe. Eventually it would make sense that all the black holes end up as one huge black hole containing the majority of (if not all of) the matter originally released by the big bang.
Even if a few black holes escape, there are still (as I understand it) tiny black holes appearing from nowhere all around. They have to leave 'something' behind when they dissipate that could - over time - be consumed by the ultimate black hole until it reaches the density equal to the entire amount of matter discharged by the big bang.
That leaves a situation very similar to just before the big bang singularity exploded, and pretty much identical to the ending of the contracting universe idea.
On a related note, this time going back to the ultimate beginning. A Stephen Hawkin documentary recently argued that the big bang singularity appeared from nothing fully formed at full density. While I'm sure that wouldn't have been argued if not possible, it seems a little strange that fully formed big bang dense singularities have not appeared since.
However, if you have an empty endless void of nothing, and a rule that allows tiny enough objects to spontaniously exist out of nothingness, the same gradual combination of black holes eating each other in the void can evenqtually create the density for a big bang singularity over time, from the tiny black holes that supposedly appear all around us.
As I've never seen or read anyone making the same arguments, and as it seems like a pretty logical next step to take, my question is what's wrong with my logic?
~ Oliver Piotrowski