/sci/ - Science & Math

You do realise that for the universe to be cyclical it would have to contract back down to the initial infinitely dense point to allow another big bang right.

>>4553127
And this view is not widely accepted by science. By measuring the background radiation the currently accepted geometry of the universe is that it is flat (as opposed to a closed sphere, or hyperbolic universe).

This has important implications:
-it implies the total energy of the universe is essentially 0 (which precludes a "big crunch")
-it implies that the universe will expand forever (as far as we know)
-combined with what we know about the inflationary model and dark energy-accelerated inflation, the universe will eventually accelerate to the point where galaxies, and eventually their constituent parts (down to atoms, EVENTUALLY) will likely tear apart.

Astrophysicists correct me. I'm just re-hashing some Lawrence Krauss here.

>>4553122
>what if the universe if cyclical

What if OP is 15 years old and only now thinking about this stuff for the first time when everyone else on this board has thought about this very same thing 10 years ago and have since studied physics and now understands that it is in fact impossible.

Fucking child.

>>4553139
>in fact impossible.
>implying

>What if the whatifferse is whatiffical?
What if you GTFO

>>4553139
>impossible

this shit is all hypothetical, so don't use such words, especially when there are current cyclical hypotheses such as baum frampton or steinhardt turok

guess you didn't study for 10 years very hard

>>4553127
What about a sine, going 45degrees upwards?

>>4553184

> I mean, the expansion of our universe is accelerating

The expansion has been accelerating since the dawn of time. We must have been on the brink of a new big bang for 13 billion years!

Besides, it's not how it's working. You can't predict quantum fluctuations. It just happens spontaneously.

>>4553227
It's scary how long it takes before you get proper answers here.
/thread and sage