Can anyone/anything escape the Singularity in the Big Bounce Theory?

There is no scientific evidence that the universe will reverse its expansion and do a "big bounce." All current data indicate that the universe will expand forever, ending up as a thinning soup of energy and/or particles. Because there will be no change, time (which is just a measure of change) will effectively stop. For more, see the last link, "Sean Carroll - Cosmology and the Arrow of Time."

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the physics of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). See the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps." And, see the 5th link for "Quantum scientists make something out of nothing."

"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."

- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

Josh, you're honestly fabulous and that i concur consisting of your decision to place up this question decrease than faith. technological know-how isn't any longer approximately looking the fact . . . if a theory can not be shown through remark it particularly is going to be deserted, it particularly is elementary to scientific theory. Scientists are patently gotistical (and that's no longer a foul element inevitably), even though it does creat a topic the place "i do no longer understand" can not be stated. those scientists declare that the Genesis account makes for stable examining yet is unscientific, then they proceed to jot down scientific garble that's the two undesirable examining and no closer to the fact. because of the fact the time the enormous Bang theory became presented in its present day sort everybody is getting puzzled and think of that right here and there there could be information because of the fact each scientist that's particularly expert interior the "enormous bang" fields (paleontology, Astronomy, etc.) have assumed the fact of the theory to pass forward of their study . . . you may no longer use logic to describe or discredit a theory that's believed to be real. the enormous Bang theory has grow to be a commencing up stone for contemporary-day technological know-how mutually as on no account being shown . . . it particularly is hardly ever scientific. I see somebody named Spamandham desperate to extend the topc of "the guidelines replaced". that's a cornerstone in enormous bang theory. Apparrently, the "rules" of the universe have a habit of fixing (assuming the enormous bang is real, not one of the guidelines have replaced for the reason that that one volume of time). i come across it exciting that the enormous bang creates a "regulation" that asserts that organic "rules" exchange, in spite of the lack of ability of information to assist that topsy-turvy postulate. Why have not the guidelines replaced for the reason that that element? the enormous bang theorists have confidence that the univers expands and then contracts (esssentialls like an element view of a DNA double helix) meaning that the commencing up of our univers won't have been the commencing up . . . there would have been varied universes latest earlier (that's the declare, I won't debate). . . although, if it particularly is real that the "rules" exchange (yet another declare) why has this technique maintained its integrity, why hasn't it ever replaced? (or a minimum of on no account waivered from the development of exchange)

Apply the thermodynamic laws:

(1) you can't win

(2) you can't break even

(3) you can't quit

So, no, you can't gt out of the universe, no matter how advanced you are,

and there's no guarantee that the 'next' universe will have the same laws as this one.

On top of which, the simgularity point is NOT in the universe as we know it!

There is no evidence of the Big Bounce so I don't think it could happen, in fact the universe will continue to expand for infinite time

Current theory (which does not favour the big bounce) says if a collapse happens the whole framework of space and time collapses - there is no "other place" to go during a collapse.

the bounce theory was conclusively dis proven when it turned out that the expansion of the universe was accelerating over time.

Only Chuck Norris can do that.