Big Bang Cycle

Last night there was a program on BBC2 about the atom and how its discovery eventually led to the 'Big Bang Theory', with the big bang theoretically being the only thing with the temperatures and pressures to create the excess helium found in stars such as our sun.

It mentioned that the big bang started with a tiny dot of concentrated mass which then exploded for whatever reason, eventually creating the universe.

When watching this I remembered that mass cannot be created or destroyed so all the mass that is now in the unverse must have been conatined in this one dot of mass.

I likened this to a black hole which led to me coming up with my theory of the big bang, rather being the point of all creation, actually being part of a huge cycle.

I have no evidence or calculations to back this up, I just want to see what you guys think about it and whether it is possible.

Here is a basic description of my theory:

-A single point containing all mass and energy in the universe explodes, sending all mass and engery outwards.

-Stars, planets, galaxies etc are formed.

-Some of these stars die and form black holes

-The black holes begin absorbing mass and energy

-More and more black holes are formed as more and more stars die, all the while mass and energy is absobed into these black holes

-Eventually all mass and energy has been absorbed into these black holes

-The huge gravitational pull of the black holes attract them towards each other

-The black holes are absorbed into each other untill there is just one point in space that contains all mass an energy of the universe

-This single point containing all mass and energy in the universe explodes.........etc

This iis just a theory, I have no evidence or knowledge of wheter this is possible or not but I want to see what people on this board think of it.

All comments are appreciated

I have a similiar theory, but one important difference. Your theory assumes there is one big bang. At the center of each galaxy is a supermassive black hole. They do merge when galaxies collide. My theory is that there are/have been multiple big bangs when one of the blackholes explode. Basically, the big bang is a localized phenomenon. Other then that, our theories are pretty darn close.

Originally posted by TLomon
I have a similiar theory, but one important difference. Your theory assumes there is one big bang. At the center of each galaxy is a supermassive black hole. They do merge when galaxies collide. My theory is that there are/have been multiple big bangs when one of the blackholes explode. Basically, the big bang is a localized phenomenon. Other then that, our theories are pretty darn close.

I also thought about that, I was wondering why there wasn't lots of mini-big bangs which may occur if my theory was correct.

I'm guessing that only a black hole with all the mass and energy in the universe could cause the outward explosion....just guessing though.

I only came up with it last night though so I havn't had much time to research it yet, lol.

Well, one thing I considered was that galaxies are observed to collide to each other. If there was one central explosion, shouldn't all the pieces be flowing outwards in a generally scattered matter?

However, observation shows galaxies rotating around galaxies, some moving in different directions, etc. This made me think that there may be more then one source of the original explosion(s).

I have no scientific knowledge of the Big Band theory but that sounds like a very plausable idea.. especially as pretty much everything else in the universe moves in cycles.

so essentially the universe is created then after billions of years it starts to die, then once all the matter and energy is one place again the whole thing starts again..

wonder how long the cycle would last?

Flagged!! love it!!

Originally posted by Sandals24
so essentially the universe is created then after billions of years it starts to die, then once all the matter and energy is one place again the whole thing starts again..

wonder how long the cycle would last?

Yeah, thats the basic idea

I doubt we'll ever know how long it would take, or even if it happens at all, we'd just be given a rough estimate of billions of years, lol.

It doesn't look like there many people on the site that are interested anyway, judging by the number of replies

Hey, just looked on wikipedia and it appears the idea has been around for quite a long time:

Oscillatory universe

Cyclic model

makes quite interesting reading

Heh... I just posted this theory in another thread before realizing you guys were already discussing it

mass CAN be created, and heres how I prove it. the thing is, nothing which exists that is tangible in the physical, ie documentable, can create mass, but there was once a creation of mass. if you believe the universe explodes from a single point ala big bang then implodes back to a single point, some time way back at the beginning of the cycle, which had to have a start and a creation, mass was created. You dont have to ask me who made it unless you're just trying to be smart. :-P

everything that has mass which exists, exists.

thats my proof. see, that proves that the mass was created, because if it wasnt created, it wouldnt be there. now im not talking created as in designed by the factory or put together by hand, i mean created as mass, or matter, whatever form it might become changed into. all mass/matter had to come from somewhere, at some point in time, called the beginning point, sometime long ago.

I personally agree with the concept. Always have.

However, I think Douglas Adams said it best.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable... There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

reply to post by runetang


You have proved your point merely by your oppinion that creation exists.

By this thinking I prove you are wrong because my oppinion is that there is no creation, just cycles.

This is obviously not proof and noone would accept it as proof, which is why I don't see your post as proof.


Just because we can't comprehend eternal existance doesn't mean it isn't possible.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by owzitgarn]

I saw a documentary about Einstein that said the big bang was caused when the speed of light drastically changed. When the universe was young, the speed of light was drastically faster than it is now. The big bang apparently happened in one place, and the fact that we see other galaxies moving in different directions is because space itself is expanding.

It was a fascinating documentary.

-The black holes begin absorbing mass and energy

-More and more black holes are formed as more and more stars die, all the while mass and energy is absobed into these black holes

-Eventually all mass and energy has been absorbed into these black holes

-The huge gravitational pull of the black holes attract them towards each other

Nice post.........love mans ability to wonder.....keep up the good work. I believe some scientists believe the universe is moving apart and outwards which may make the above parts of your theory wrong as matter is moving away and unable to be redrawn in on itself to crete another big bang.

skyserver.sdss.org...

Will the Universe expand forever or recollapse?

This depends on the ratio of the density of the Universe to the critical density. If the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggest that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever. See Part 3 of the tutorial for more information.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

Heres more on your line of thought....

What about the oscillating Universe?

If the Universe recollapses, then there is another singularity at the time of the Big Crunch. A singularity means that the laws of physics break down, so we have no way to predict whether the Big Crunch will connect to another cycle of expansion. Even if the density were high enough to cause a recollapse, there would be no guarantee that the Universe would oscillate. But the current evidence is strongly against any recollapse, which would rule out the oscillating Universe. See PBS or Ask an Astronomer about this.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

Originally posted by atlasastro
I believe some scientists believe the universe is moving apart and outwards which may make the above parts of your theory wrong as matter is moving away and unable to be redrawn in on itself to crete another big bang.

Yeah..that could cause a problem but I am led to believe that the universe's expansion is slowing down....so maybe in the distant future it may stop....maybe even reverse like I think it might.

There is also ay be a lot of dark matter in the universe. Scientists don't know much about this so maybe if it is ever understood it will bring the calculations of the universe's density up. Just guessing though...

thanks for the links as well

The big bang theory is flawed on so many levels.

Nothing creates nothing period, there is no scientific or mathematical calculation in the world today that will say or prove otherwise. Take a look around you everything you see, hear and feel, can you even comprehend the complexity, to say that everything we know and everything we are was completely random which is what your saying with this theory is nothing short of insane.

As you said matter or more energy cannot be created or destroyed and giving the amount of energy in this universe where could of it been hiding because there is no way it was all stuffed into a microscopic dot.

Matter, time and space are finite, there was a start point but what that was and when that was we will never know we can only speculate. The only thing we do know is what ever created matter, time and space is infinate or eternal if you would and whatever it was it was more powerful than we could ever possibly imagine, we are simply not evolved enough...

It is only insane based upon your oppinion. Just because you feel that it isn't all random doesn't mean that it wasn't.

Likewise just because I think it was random doesn't mean that it was.

Don't call theories insane, basing your judgment entirely on your own oppinion.

As you agreed matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form to the other, so it has always been there, there is no creation if creation is impossible.

But also, as you said, we may just not be able to comprehend theses things yet, the laws of physics have never actually been proven, just observed to be true, so there may be something else that we're missing or got wrong that could explain it.

I just came up with the theory because it is the only way i can explain to myself how something that can't be created can exist....through eternal existance and cycles.


For everybody else, please don't come to this topic and call other people's theories insane, unless of course you somehow know for certain that it is and can back it up with proof..not just oppinion.

This is about discussion, not getting your own idea across and calling everything else ludicrous.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by owzitgarn]

Originally posted by owzitgarn
It is only insane based upon your oppinion. Just because you feel that it isn't all random doesn't mean that it wasn't.

Likewise just because I think it was random doesn't mean that it was.

Don't call theories insane, basing your judgment entirely on your own oppinion.

As you agreed matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form to the other, so it has always been there, there is no creation if creation is impossible.

But also, as you said, we may just not be able to comprehend theses things yet, the laws of physics have never actually been proven, just observed to be true, so there may be something else that we're missing or got wrong that could explain it.

I just came up with the theory because it is the only way i can explain to myself how something that can't be created can exist....through eternal existance and cycles.


For everybody else, please don't come to this topic and call other people's theories insane, unless of course you somehow know for certain that it is and can back it up with proof..not just oppinion.

This is about discussion, not getting your own idea across and calling everything else ludicrous.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by owzitgarn]

Physics as we know it to date it is not just observed, to be science we must be able to test it, retest it and have some way of measuring it. I have no doubt that there are advancements to be made but you cant just say that what we know is wrong. Entropy the second law of physics works against the theory of evolution, there has never ever, ever, ever been any witnessed account or evidence to support Evolution of any kind with the exception of micro evolution which isnt evolution like some would like you to think.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a test is basically an observed action.

Also I didn't say that the laws of phsyics were wrong, I just said they might be.

I think we both have the same idea on this and are just getting our wires crossed. I think pretty much the same as you, that there may be a few advancements to be made, not that physics is totally wrong.

There are a few things that can't be explained with current physics models so there might be something we have missed or got wrong.

A physics law, including the laws of thermodynamics and thus entropy, is not something that has been proven, it is something that has not been shown to be wrong....yet.

I don't know much about evolution though, all I think about that is how did trees evolve to make the taste, smell and sight of fruit appealing to animals all by themselves

If this theory were to be true you would need to explain what would cause the black hole to experience a big bang. If all of the mass in the entire universe were in one super-massive black hole, the gravitational pull would be so strong that NOTHING could escape. There would be no big-bang, just a big-pull of all of the mass in the entire universe into one single ultra-condensed black hole.

I see many flaws in this theory.

reply to post by InterestedObserver


Wow, i'd never thought of that

well spotted, that sorta shoots my theory out of the sky though