0
The Big Bang theory is widely supported by astronomers and astrophysicists, because there is considerable evidence for it; the 4 degree Kelvin cosmic background radiation, the fact that space seems to be expanding and the evidence of the red-shift of far-away galaxies. This doesn't make it TRUE; we will probably never be able to PROVE that the Big Bang happened. But the evidence is consistent.
For the Big Crunch hypothesis; Not so much. One of the fundamental beliefs in physics is "symmetry"; that everything balances. It is an elegant belief, but is not always supported by evidence. Unfortunately for the Big Crunch, there seems to be little actual evidence. Yes, it would make nice symmetry, a lovely balance, a nice closure to the Big Bang. But of evidence we have seen little.
Right now, the observable universe seems to lack anywhere near enough mass to cause the universe to slow its expansion and collapse back upon itself (perhaps creating the next Big Bang). One of the arguments for "dark matter" is that if there is massive amounts of dark, unobservable matter, that this might "close" the universe and bring about the Big Crunch. But without more evidence, this is a circular argument.
So, I would say, "No, this is not a trust-able theory." The better answer is, as it often is, "We do not know.".
What else can I help you with?
Is the big yawn a trust-able theory?
All evidence shows that the Big yawn is a trustable theory as it is in action at the moment, the big crunch theory isn't too reliable, because i is no proven that the Universe has a length.
Who discovered big crunch?
The Big Crunch Theory was not discovered by anyone. It was a theory proposed by many scientists as it does not have one person responsible for it's creation.
Which theory suggests that for every big bang there is a crunch?
The theory that suggests for every big bang there is a crunch is known as the "Big Crunch" theory. It proposes that the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and reverse, leading to a contraction of the universe back to a singular point, followed by another big bang.
What are the Reverse effects of the big bang theory?
The Big Crunch hypothesis.
What is the difference between big bang theory and big crunch theory?
The big bang theory is the explosion that started the universe. Where as the big crunch is the theory where the universe will eventually contract and become increasingly clumped and eventaully all mater would collapse into black holes which would then coalesce producing a unified black hole or Big Crunch singularity.
What is the nebular theory of how the milky way galaxy was formed?
Big Crunch?
Who discover big crunch theory?
The concept of the Big Crunch theory was primarily developed by physicist George Gamow in the 1940s, building upon the expanding universe theory proposed by Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble. It suggests that the universe could eventually stop expanding and collapse back into a hot, dense state, leading to a potential "crunch" where all matter is squeezed into a tiny space.
Is the Big Crunch a trust-able theory?
The Big Bang theory is widely supported by astronomers and astrophysicists, because there is considerable evidence for it; the 4 degree Kelvin cosmic background radiation, the fact that space seems to be expanding and the evidence of the red-shift of far-away galaxies. This doesn't make it TRUE; we will probably never be able to PROVE that the Big Bang happened. But the evidence is consistent. For the Big Crunch hypothesis; Not so much. One of the fundamental beliefs in physics is "symmetry"; that everything balances. It is an elegant belief, but is not always supported by evidence. Unfortunately for the Big Crunch, there seems to be little actual evidence. Yes, it would make nice symmetry, a lovely balance, a nice closure to the Big Bang. But of evidence we have seen little. Right now, the observable universe seems to lack anywhere near enough mass to cause the universe to slow its expansion and collapse back upon itself (perhaps creating the next Big Bang). One of the arguments for "dark matter" is that if there is massive amounts of dark, unobservable matter, that this might "close" the universe and bring about the Big Crunch. But without more evidence, this is a circular argument. So, I would say, "No, this is not a trust-able theory." The better answer is, as it often is, "We do not know.".
Is the big yawn a trust able theory?
yes, because random beardy scientists say so, and as they have a beard, they cannot be wrong.
For how long will the Big Crunch process occur?
If "the Big Crunch" refers to the theory that the universe will eventually end in all matter and energy being slowly squeezed back into its position it was before the Big Bang, then your question sort of makes no sense. If it is true, then it will last for as long as it has to until it is in "a crunch." And, in fact, many scientists are throwing away the Big Crunch Theory and instead proposing the universe is expanding and expanding faster as time progresses, and also space will collapse in on itself or something like that.
How does the big bounce theory differ from the big bang theory?
in big bang theory the particles will just move away outside. while in big bounce, a stage will come when all the particles once again will form singularity as the result of big crunch. that's what i think.
What is the big bore theory?
The Big Bounce theory suggests that the universe expands and contracts in a continuous cycle, with each cycle ending in a "big crunch" followed by a new "big bang." This theory is an alternative to the Big Bang theory and proposes that the universe has no beginning or end.
