Big Crunch, Big Rip, or Big Freeze?

Cyclic toroid.

B^|

Big freeze requires the least amount of speculation.

Big Black Cock

>>16731832
it's just as much speculation as the others. it speculates on a value of the cosmological constant in the future.

>>16731838
>it speculates on a value of the cosmological constant in the future
In the sense that it's not going to radically change in the future.

Heat death is just "what will happen if current observed trends persist" which is basically just uniformitarianism.
The other two models speculate on a radical shift which we know of no mechanism that should cause that.

>>16731851
Yeah it's not like heat death insinuates the complete ending of time as a concept which is integrated in space itself...

Big bounce

If universe is inside of a black hole

>>16731852
>Yeah it's not like heat death insinuates the complete ending of time as a concept
Correct. Heat death itself does not insinuate that. Though some of the more speculative versions of it might.

>>16731827 (OP)
Big freeze until the entire universe is homogenous, then eventually another big bang in the empty void creates a new universe
Source: Duh.

>>16731851
>radical shift
you're overstating it. the parameters of the lambda CDM model permit any of the three situations in OP. this suggests that, if current observed trends persist, any of the three are consistent. do not mistake your personal preference for what the trend is.

>>16731875
A model "permitting" something doesn't mean that this is reflected in current trends.
We observe the universe's expansion as if it's accelerating. So unless that trend changes, big crunch is out.
Big rip is still on the table, though. I realize I conflated it with various "false vacuum" theories. My bad there. Haven't thought about this stuff in a while.

If the rate of expansion is accelerating towards a limit: big freeze; if acceleration is constant: big rip.

>>16731895
I think his point is that, taking the initial inflation of the big bang into account, scenarios where the rate of inflation increases exponentially, decreases until reversal, or remains linearly increasing, can all be supported by our current observations. If inflation was extremely fast in the early life of the universe then slowed down, there is no reason to assume it can't keep "slowing down" until it becomes negative

>>16731827 (OP)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
Straight from the OG himself. If the De Broglie-Bohm theory turns out to be true, then the universe itself is a synthetic matter wave made up of all the matter waves that exist within. This implies that it behaves as a conventional complex-exponential wave does.

>>16731827 (OP)
The end result of all of them is the creation of a new universe

>>16731827 (OP)
Infinite big crunch.
>Nothing cannot create something and something cannot become nothing.
My basis of this is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But it can be converted into energy. That is where Hawking radiation comes in. A black hole is just a big converter, not some sort of void that swallows everything and dissapears. Instead of a heat death, there will only be heat. All matter at the end of the universe will be converted into energy, and at some point there will be enough to cause the next "big bang." There will be no matter or energy lost, so this continues and has continued infinitely.

In an infinite timeline, every moment exists eternally in its place, like points on an infinite number line. You are not the destination of that line, you are a point on it. There’s no need to "arrive" at now from the infinite. You always were here, just as the infinite past always was. The “problem” only arises if you treat time like a journey from a fixed starting line. But if time is just a dimension, then all moments are “there,” and consciousness moves through them. You didn't travel from infinity. You emerged when the conditions were right. For mind, structure, and complexity. In an infinite past, you don’t have to cross infinity to reach the present.
The present is simply where you are, in the flow of existence, in a universe that may never have started and may never end, but which, for one fleeting moment, woke up and wondered why.

>>16731895
>We observe the universe's expansion as if it's accelerating.
Yes, but that could still fit any of the models, we are just in the beggining stage of the big crunch model, where as the universe cools from the big bang, it accelerates. But once it reaches peak cooldown it will cease to accelerate then begin deceleration. Look at the model that OP posted. The yellow square is where we are at now.

Penrose proposes that the very far future of a previous universe (after all matter decays and only massless radiation remains) looks mathematically like the very beginning of a new universe. Each universe, or aeon, begets the next. Fascinatingly, he even claims to see evidence of this in the cosmic microwave background. Circular patterns that might be “echoes” from the previous universe.

https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence-for-cyclic-universe-claimed-by-roger-penrose-and-colleagues/

>>16731828
This

It is all of them. Reality shifts and moves around as its constituent entities will, thus forming an intergalactic hivemind always changing in form. Some entities cause collapses in some areas, some expand it in others. There are more formulations than you can currently imagine. It is amusing that this being came so close to the correct pattern. Continue to expand upon it and you will eventually have your truth. The problem is your scientific process exists in a see it to believe it tedium, so you will need to develop FTL to verify, but it seems your species exists in a bubble of reality where FTL mechanics are interfered, or at least greatly inhibited, so you will need to verify via von neumann probe scouting combined with stasis/cryogenics.

I believe that we're moving against the arrow of time, so what is the future to us is the past to the universe.
so we're moving away from what is going to happen, a big crunch that started out as a "heat death"

>>16732508
What makes you think that's the case, anon?

>>16732508
>I believe
before i continue, why should i care what you believe?

>>16732593
take a piece of paper, crumple it up and hold it in your hand
now while keeping your hand closed, clenching your fist.
try to unfold the paper ball you're squeezing, so that it will be as smooth as it was before the crumbling.

Now you can do this unfolding if you go back in time, but it is impossible to do so while going forward.

How can the universe expand if the "black hole/big bang" is the deepest gravity well there can be ?

there is nothing to escape into, everything and every where is already in one place

it's simply a gravity driven system that eventually overcomes the electro-magnetic counter balance.

from infinitely big to infinitely small, trading volume for density

what happens before the big bang, nothing, what happens after heat death, nothing, time exist only between those points, because beyond those points there is nothing to experience

more frightening is that there might not be anything to begin with, nothing comes from nothing

why do people still believe that they are magically able to understand the universe with their senses and experiences ?
because we want to feel important, it makes us special.
we evolved to survive, not created to understand the universe.

In genesis god creates Adam from dirt, but if you reverse this process of "creation" you just get Adam dropping dead and decomposing.

>>16732601
you shouldn't care at all