The Big Bang is popular with most scientists these days but there are quite a few theories on how it will end...
A few of the more popular are,
The Big Freeze or heat death - based on entropy and loss of heat, (more complex than it sounds). This is currently the most popular theory. All life ends, so does time if you accept that the existence of time requires life.
The Big Rip - The universe disintegrates when expansion reaches a critical point with dark energy.
The Big Crunch - The universe eventually begins to contract until it collapses into it's original infinite point of mass/energy.
The Big Bounce - The Big Crunch is followed by a new Big Bang.
I'm not sure which of these Hawking favors.
I have enjoyed the discussion but I still wonder how a guy as smart as Hawking can reach a scientific conclusion to a philosophical question without clearly stipulating that his conclusion is limited to the laboratory and the blackboard.
What am I missing that delivers him from the appearance of arrogance.
Off Topic » in reply to Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God
- Re: Stephen Hawking on the existence of God