Big Crunch or Big Rip?

[SteveA]

Even with a big RIP or a big Freeze, matter or energy would not be destroyed.

Maybe strinns are both the field ( Lines ) and little strings rolled up into an enegy ball at every corner.

Yes, I view it similarly, though I don't think the field lines can actually be orthogonal to each other as the image implies.

Consider if there existed two physical properties that were perfectly orthogonal to each other, could we detect them as acting in a correlated manner in that space?

(I suspect the electromagnetic field is actually a single string looping through every unit of matter - it's segments should at least logically be considered discrete and identical in length - a straight motion encompasses space and a motion that reintersects itself constructs matter (the length of the loop between these intersections determines the wavelength of the mass - though there's a problem here in correlating it with energy as energy is seen in terms of discrete units, but energy and wavelength are reciprocally related and so we have a mismatch between integer units in one reference and rational numbers in the other, but if we convert energy to a measure of information content and energy, then we can have an approximately linear gain of energy relative to a unit increase in wavelength, as knowing the state of an object in 1 of n states provides the equivalent of log(n) bits of information, but the mismatch will show greater disagreement on larger or smaller scales and physical properties can become distorted).

Notice also that if we have discrete units of wavelength, an object in 1 of n states provides a source for the ability to select between 1 of n objects or actions. If we construct a physical system that has m states, but m is not constructable as a factor of other wavelengths, then the wavelengths do not interact, despite wavelengths that can be apparently close to each other in length - so you have discreteness observed within spectrum that can appear to be continuous as well as distortions to the apparent linearity near some macroscopic reference.

To get a better example of the idea, imagine we have a single photon/process that moves through the entire universe only to return an irrelevant quantity of virtual time later to be consciously detected as a single event. Where this process moves and "how fast" it does this is unrelated to our perceptions because the information it represents conveys our perception of positions and times - just like the apparent motion of some object moving on a computer monitor is not related to space or rates of motions of electrons.

Now we can simplify everything down to a single final observed state and this state cannot be selected from a potential set larger than our perceptions recognize - for example, each photon detection conveys more information if I'm monitor 3 detectors, rather than only 1 or 2 because I can make 1 of 3 decisions in the former case based upon it, or more quickly refine some estimate of a distance, than I could using 2 and performing a binary search or using a single detector that really provides no information except the delay between detections (but that adds the assumption of an additional clock which would require photons to view it, so that's kind of cheating - a single detector just measures time and sees nothing else - it's the equivalent of viewing zero energy (because they provide no information to interprete as energy) black/dark photons)

Anyway, as a better example of the discrete properties on fine scales of wavelengths, if we can see a symmetrical square object, this implies the existence of something with a 4 way symmetry, otherwise it would not be a perfect square.

If we're detecting information via, let's say 5 detectors and they're uniformly distributed between these, then we can't construct a perfect 4 way symmetry between these, because there is no 4^n=5^m (except if n=m=0). There is nothing in the set 4,16,64,256,... that precisely equals anything in the set 5,25,125,625,... though some elements can come very close to a ratio of 1 between them and appear "equal" in an approximate physical sense, but they're never identical and there is no manner to rearrange the channels or compute some derivative structure etc. to match two of these probabilities between sets - so we have a discrete spectrum with unique wavelengths determined by their factors, so they can be interpreted to represent orthogonal properties in a sense.

Now if we have two objects that appear to remain stationary relative to each other in space, yet all the components of both objects are moving at a constant velocity, then it should be that when we integrate the motion of these over a complete cycle, their motions cancel in influence and this would require that they be synchronized at the equivalent of some harmonic frequencies of a common fundamental they share and that larger wavelength fundamental could be seen as correlated to the larger space that contains both objects.

If we look at diagrams of atomic orbitals, they appear as various ratios of integers to each other similar to "Lissajous figures", except they're blurred because we don't detect them synchronized in time with our observations (though I don't believe they can't be entirely desynchronized - the synchronization is just complex). Each electron could be interpreted as orbiting through various dimensional states over a certain period of time and the form it appears to describe relative to another electron orbiting through at least one common dimension at the same position constructs the form of the orbital shells. These possess discrete wavelength due to the 1 of n phases each is cycling through that cannot interact with relatively prime wavelengths.

I don't have all this stuff nailed down, but the same mechanisms appear to be related to most any (at least deterministic and logical) subject someone could desire to learn about, not so much because an external reality forces such a structure upon things, but simply because they appear to arise from the properties of perception, time and thought itself - (which could imply that whatever is truly "out there" is likely something beyond logical description - I won't go into detail but ironically it doesn't appear that any of the logical structures I described above can actually exist in a form perceived over time and we're likely seeing the boundary between chaos and order and neither directly, but the logical form I described above should act similar to a common landscape or an invisible seed, from which the rest of the physical universe is structured upon - the problem is that it's structure is complex and most the Millenium Problems appear based upon it, though an interesting consideration is that there may be a mechanism by which computation can be performed via. molding shapes instead of designing intricate logic - a shape has various resonance modes that can be interpreted as performing computations - we structure a space and then inject a white noise spectrum and determine the resonant freqencies - the specific computations performed on small scales may not be very significant as we just need approximately constant velocities on larger scales ... but it would be more ideal to determine things on a finer scale of precision).

[SteveA]

One more common on a more related note:

Regarding the Big Crunch or Big Rip, I believe neither will occur (except in some exceedingly rare probabilistic sense) and the reason why I state this is because I don't think gravity is a single force but the net influence of a potentially infinite number of forces on finer and finer scales (there are an infinite number of primes).

Consider your diagram above, if the intersections of this network (that construct matter) were very finely detailed knots, an object travelling along such a thread would demonstrate the macroscopic appearance of a random diffusion or Brownian Motion (what Einstein was studying before Relativity).

Now consider how the probability field of the evolution of such a motion appears over time - it's an expanding sphere of probabilistic influence (which also agrees with many physical properties of matter having no stationary "hard" core).

Notice that is we had two such (probabilistic) "masses" and we allowed these spheres of influence to expand over time, then on a scale relative to the expansion of each over time, the two masses appear to occupy the same volume of space over time, but they magically attract each other and collide, despite them initially being centered at locations distant from each other.

When such a "force" is attempted to be measured, no coherent correlation is detect as this "force" is actually derived from the net results of a potentially unlimited number of other forces (we've only untangled and unified 3 of them so far and likely the ones with the shortest wavelengths, as these would be most influencial and common - the collection of the remainder we call "gravity" and it's "unusually weak" ... which would not be unexpected from the net influence of a collection of largely cancelling influences).

Now what does this mean for something like the classical Black Hole? Well a collection of dense mass should expand and possess a statistical leading "shockwave" - "Hawking Radiation".

The Earth expands and pushes you upward. The Moon moves in a straight line away from the Earth, but it expands as well and relative to the new scale of distance it appears recentered at a closer and stationary position, yet it's rotated relative to the Earth instead.

If we have such a diffusion to space, we also have a distortion to our view of external space. If a photon experiences such jumps in space, then over time the pathway followed by a photon is not a straight line. This adds a chaotic and increasingly incoherent element made to observations over large distances. If we looked far enough into space we should just see an chaotic and energetic blur (the "illusion" of the Big Bang) in the same manner that looking through more and more sheets of warped glass makes the image less and less coherently arranged.

Notice that such a chaos would not possess coherent physical traits relative to the properties view in space locally so such views could be interpreted on any scale of size as either a creative singularity or an infinite expanse of radiative stimulation (again matching observations of the Big Bang).

(As a sidenote: We should also be able to get some clues as to the basic properties of space and this constructive process by looking at the shape of the spectrum of cosmic background radiation similar to the filter structure of a musical instrument - the slopes and center point can give tell us the number of integrating and differentiating processes involved and the center point can point to the general scale on which these processes are occuring in space).

If you accelerate an object, the motions become more coherent and less internally diffused. This makes the object appear to internally age slower (and the equation for time dilation agrees exactly with that derived by this diffusive model).

So if we had the Big Bang instead represent a continual creative event continually injecting energy into the universe via larger and larger relatively prime wavelengths of information (which can be "hetrodyned" to higher frequencies and shorter and more immediately influencial wavelengths), then the universe need not have begun at some time in the past, nor does it need to end in the future in either a Big Crush or a Big Rip.

The reason why it appears finite should arise from the capabilities of our senses as the physical volume that could be ascertained to exist in space should be derived from our ability to make distinctions between the various properties detected within it - the finer the grain to our ability to make distinctions, the larger the universe can appear and this is an exponential relationship.

... well, hopefully you'll find some interesting bits in there. Take what you want and toss out the rest (or hang on to them in the background and mull them over later).

[Mr. Ignorant]

According to Roger Penrose it will keep expanding until all energy is evenly distributed. Somehow this gives rise to a new Big Bang.

I'm not sure why. Maybe someone knows.

[dipayankar]

Its like recreating ice from sparse water vapour

According to Roger Penrose it will keep expanding until all energy is evenly distributed. Somehow this gives rise to a new Big Bang.

I'm not sure why. Maybe someone knows.

[Ava202]

According to Roger Penrose it will keep expanding until all energy is evenly distributed. Somehow this gives rise to a new Big Bang.

I'm not sure why. Maybe someone knows.

I think we may have a good idea. But if the total energy in the universe is too low it can not happen and if the total energy is too large it will never become evenly distributed.

I would not hold my breath waiting, either way.

The bigger question may be, "Was there a big bang or are there other possibilities?

[austintorn@aol.com]

There are other possibilities. The notion of the Big Bang is dependent on the meaning of redshift. It could be that photons decay and thus expand, not space, emitting decay photons once in a great while, since quantized, which form the CMBR. The universe is a perfect equation in which all must sum to zero, thus the conservation laws (for cause and effect cannot go on forever down, and so it must be discarded in favor of an equation).

[Mr. Ignorant]

Its like recreating ice from sparse water vapour

Yes, in a way. However on a bigger scale things may work differently.

I think we may have a good idea. But if the total energy in the universe is too low it can not happen and if the total energy is too large it will never become evenly distributed.

I would not hold my breath waiting, either way.

The bigger question may be, "Was there a big bang or are there other possibilities?

How is it possible that the total energy in the universe is so low that it can't be evenly distributed? And how can it be too large?

I believe there are some scientists who think that Big Bangs happen occasionally. I'm not talking about M-theory that states that Big Bangs happen all the time in a multiverse. I'm talking about Big Bangs in this universe.

[Ava202]

Its like recreating ice from sparse water vapour

Possibly more like an endothermic process converting a big crystal into a larger volume of cooler glass. A process where it would be necessary for all energy in the crystal to become nearly perfectly distributed while arriving at a final temperature of 0 degrees absolute after the transition. And it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

[Ava202]

Not that the energy could not become evenly distributed but that the conditions that would permit this to occur are narrow.

How is it possible that the total energy in the universe is so low that it can't be evenly distributed?

Our proposed structure of the universe would requires an input of energy to change to the higher pressure state and this state must be at Zero thermal energy level. And even a bit too little energy would leave a spec of the universe at the lower pressure and higher temperature; this would cause the universe to revert to the present proposed structure.

And how can it be too large?

Too much energy in the proposed structure and dislocations occur producing matter.

So to smooth out and become evenly distributed the total energy in the Universe must not be too low nor too high.

[dipayankar]

I wonder if that much of energy will happen at the cosmic scale. If what Penrose says will happen in reality, maybe we will have a perfect thermodynamic cycle with 100% efficiency.

Possibly more like an endothermic process converting a big crystal into a larger volume of cooler glass. A process where it would be necessary for all energy in the crystal to become nearly perfectly distributed while arriving at a final temperature of 0 degrees absolute after the transition. And it is not likely to happen anytime soon.