If after the universe stops expanding it starts contracting again and eventually blows up from the pressure again in an...

If after the universe stops expanding it starts contracting again and eventually blows up from the pressure again in an infinite cycle, it means it has already happened an infinite amount of times and will happen again an infinite amount of times. that means every conceivable combination of energy, matter, events, etc, ie you and your entire life, has already happened an infinite amount of times, and will replay again an infinite amount of times.

Is that a scientifically accurate statement? How does time play into it? What is the effect on time once the universe starts contracting?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/103-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/geometry-of-space-time/600-why-is-the-universe-flat-and-not-spherical-advanced
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_recurrence_theorem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's not scientifically accurate if you can't prove or disprove it.

nah but if determinism were real couldn't we figure it out and prevent something that was supposed to happen from happening? in effect disproving determinism

I see the oscillatory universe theory has basically been disproved. Too bad, was sort of comforting to think i'd see all my dead friends and family members again.

>starts contracting again
we already basically know this isn't going to happen

Yeah, I went and read all the crap on dark matter and the shape of the universe, disappointing. What's outside "the universe" though? Endless nothing?

well you can still have that theory, and it actually exists, from a guy named Roger Penrose, namely en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

It basically says that everything is slowly going to dissipate, stars are going to use up their energy, black holes will eventually get smaller and smaller with hawking radiation, protons might possibly decay, etc then at that point there will be nothing relative; time won't really be a thing; aeons will pass, and it will all start again

as for the "what's outside the universe": nothing. the universe, by definition is everything. however, whether the universe is closed in on itself or it just goes on forever nobody knows.

Meta physics. Aka God

although as for the bigbang, theoretically it happened everywhere all at once; people like to think that it was an explosion at a place, lots of videos you might watch will show something like that, but its not like that

So, if there's a finite amount of matter, then there's a finite amount of combinations in an infinitely contracting and expanding universe; therefore, this exact same combination of particles interacting in the same fashion will happen again? Is that pretty much what you're saying?

>what is the effect on time?
Not sure what you mean. Time is just a measurement of movement in space.

>space/time
How does the expanding universe effect time?

>universe expands
>time moves forward
>universe contracts
>time moves ????
Once the universe stops expanding, and it starts contracting, will time start moving in reverse? How do we know which direction time is moving right now? If the universe was ending and moving in reverse, would it even be able to measure it?

The Gnab Gib was disproven long ago.

Yeah I get that, the whole 4 dimension thing and if you travel far enough in one direction, from our perspective you end up back where you began. That still doesn't really answer the question though for me. Because we exist outside the universe of a 2d object, so what is beyond the boundaries of our 3d existence?

>Once the universe stops expanding, and it starts contracting, will time start moving in reverse?
If it moved in reverse, then it would be rewinding the previous combinations of movements of particles, and as a result, we would be forced to live our lives backwards before the universe collapses. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

No, the universe would simply collapse on itself.

im not sure what you're talking about, and consequently i don't know if there's an answer

universe wouldn't contract because time is going backwards you dumb idiot, it would contract because it can't exceed the escape the escape velocity

but this is probably not going to happen regardless

I know the cyclic universe theory isn't accepted anymore, but let's say it were. When I asked about time I didn't men what the other person meant about time going backwards as the universe contracts, I meant something like time dilation once everything gets smashed back together. How will that play into it?

How will that play into it?
I'm not sure. Why would it matter?

>I know the cyclic universe theory isn't accepted anymore
That's not true at all. It's makin' a comeback.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

the cyclic universe theory is plausible, but not in the Big Crunch kind of way; rather in the way I outlined in an earlier comment

Thanks for the link. Reading it now.


Quesiton.If the shape of the universe is such that traveling far enough in one direction puts you back where you started from your perspective. How would the big freeze ever be possible. Wouldn't all matter cross back and end up coming back towards each other?

Never mind, I get it. If it is expanding, it can never actually cross back.

i think this is what you're looking for
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

>experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error
>Although it is usually assumed in the literature that a flat or negatively curved universe is infinite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the trivial one.

So, basically, there's no way to really know

>what's outside our universe

the next universe maybe. maybe billions of universes exist next to us.
expanding and contraction all the time. maybe they collide sometimes, like galaxys collide and melt together. maybe our universe is just a small spot in the "true universe".

maybe maybe maybe
nobody knows yet

curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/103-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/geometry-of-space-time/600-why-is-the-universe-flat-and-not-spherical-advanced

This article clears up a lot of those misconceptions people have

OP is full of shit but it DOES happen. The entire universe isn't collapsing, some of it is expanding. It depends where you are.

dont listen to this retard

yeah you basically know it's not going to happen until 20 years from know you know it's not not going to happen. pseudo science is a joke.

dont listen to this retard either

brainlets galore this morning didnt even read the thread; cant even read wikipedia

can't take the truth faggot? theories about the faith of the universe are based on nothing and constantly falling out of favor

>based on nothing
>cant be bothered to read a wiki page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

biggest brainlet on sci get off my board kid

exactly, based on nothing. the universe may very well be deterministic but we don't know jack shit to predict what's going to happen. it's all guesswork. blind leading the blind

>if determinism were real couldn't we figure it out and prevent something that was supposed to happen from happening?
no

who the fuck said anything about determinism you braindead ape

we're pretty certain that the universe isn't going to contract, as it's unlikely it won't exceed the escape velocity

determinism is by definition unfalsifiable and it's something of a religion to some people who crave the need to believe they could calculate everything to the smallest detail. it's really a security blanket to them. just imagine how they would react if they had to accept they are responsible for their actions

also because you're braindead i have to outline that i meant i never said shit about determinism with "who said anything about []"

we were talking about contraction of the universe, and you came in with a retarded strawman

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_recurrence_theorem

Well we already had this conversation then. And there's nothing to stop it.

No.
The universe will expand until all the particles wavefunctions collapse in one point creating a big bang 2 by pure chance

tfw the universe contracts to the exact same position and density thus causing absolutely no butterfly effect variables and an exact same version of you goes through the same pain you already have

>If after the universe stops expanding it starts contracting again
Not happening.

Well, not with the current observations. But in some hypothetical situation in which it would - maybe. It may have all been a singularity at some point, but there's a lotta incongruent distribution in the first moments of the big bang that give rise to the varied structures we see today. That could be inevitable, or it could be the result of interaction. If it's the latter, or if any factor in the fields is independent of the collapse itself, each re-collapse would "shuffle the deck" a bit and thus change the game.

But the current cosmological observations indicate that the universe will never come back together. It will expand indefinitely and experience heat death before it rips itself apart. Even if it were to slow now, the current acceleration is already too great for gravity to pull it all back together - some shit is already moving away from other shit at faster than the speed of light, relative to one another, thus gravity cannot propagate quickly enough to attract them again. Some as of yet undetected force would have to come into play to put humpty dumpty back together again - lest maybe the unimaginably distant descendants of all of King Humpty's men find a way to fundamentally change the laws of physics and put it back together again, and do so, for some odd reason.

put your hand down jonathan nobody called on you

>tfw the current universe is just a subjective experience of a boltzmann brain and we are less significant than protons inside this grand structure

Personally I like to use this thought as a motivator to not be a failure.

I like this line:
>Assuming a finite universe, the universe can either have an edge or no edge. Many finite mathematical spaces, e.g., a disc, have an edge or boundary. Spaces that have an edge are difficult to treat, both conceptually and mathematically. Namely, it is very difficult to state what would happen at the edge of such a universe. For this reason, spaces that have an edge are typically excluded from consideration.


>Discounting the possibility of an edge because the math is too hard.
Bravo, astrophysicists.

You don't need a force to make another universe. Without a meaningful way of describing the driving force behind the creation of our universe, one can only assume that universes can form arbitrarily.

Well, (trigger phrase warning) one can theoretically create another universe from within this one, indeed, any number of said - according to said theory, the end result would be that one you created would be moving away from this one at the speed of light. Some variants of the theory even predict this may happen naturally in extreme conditions, but due to that fact, the universes effectively do not exist to one another.

But that doesn't give you a repeating universe, it only grants that a universe may give birth to any number of others, provided space is still expanding slowly enough to allow particles to interact. Eventually, this universe will be expanding so quickly that said interaction will no longer be possible, each particle moving away from every other at faster than the speed of light, each being effectively its own lonely universe.

Less a process of breathing, more a shower of fireworks.