Does the universe as an expiring date?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Does the universe as an expiring date?

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1147137 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 8:55:10 UTC

According to the Big Bang theory the current universe was created from a singularity, and since then it is expanding and moving.

Will it come a time when the universe will have no more mass to expand and will stop? Or will it rip?

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31763
Credit: 13,174,148
RAC: 37,573
United Kingdom
Message 1147173 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 11:30:36 UTC

There have been three main theories on the Universe origin

(1) Steady State
(2) Big Bang
(3) Cyclic or oscillating

There are also many theories upon its ultimate fate, bang, crunch, freeze, rip, bounce ...

Universe fate

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4865
Credit: 82,140,542
RAC: 41,630
United States
Message 1147282 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 22:39:47 UTC

This is one of my favorite universe sites. Check out the interactive link. It points out that no matter what, we only see stars as long as they have fuel. When the normal stars go out, red dwarfs and black holes will be all that's left. When the red dwarfs finally go out, there will be no light in the universe. In 10^100 years, even the black holes will evaporate. The one thing this site does not explain is the rate of acceleration in the expansion of the universe. With information I have recently seen on TV, perhaps there is another universe outside of ours, with an even greater mass.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/history-universe.html

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1544
Credit: 560,373
RAC: 541
United States
Message 1147288 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 22:53:32 UTC

All I know is that the end of time whenever it occurs will be long after I'm gone.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2570
Credit: 1,179,205
RAC: 137
United States
Message 1147417 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 8:00:32 UTC - in response to Message 1147288.

10^100 has been estimated as the lifetime of the Universe in many books and articles on cosmology. Time will tell !!

Profile Lint trapProject donor
Send message
Joined: 30 May 03
Posts: 860
Credit: 26,803,499
RAC: 17,855
United States
Message 1147465 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 13:09:41 UTC - in response to Message 1147417.

10^100 has been estimated as the lifetime of the Universe in many books and articles on cosmology. Time will tell !!



I've set a countdown display on the pc so I won't be surprised when it (the end of time) happens...

Lt

Q
Send message
Joined: 15 Jun 04
Posts: 216
Credit: 329,924
RAC: 0
Message 1147507 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 16:04:36 UTC - in response to Message 1147465.

I've set a countdown display on the pc so I won't be surprised when it (the end of time) happens...

Don’t forget table reservation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/milliways.shtml.

And a bit more seriously on the topic: weren’t the universal options either expanding to complete entropy or contracting back to square one or something, and that so far we can’t tell?

Regards

PK

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12577
Credit: 6,881,470
RAC: 6,634
United States
Message 1147509 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 16:07:43 UTC - in response to Message 1147507.

And a bit more seriously on the topic: weren’t the universal options either expanding to complete entropy or contracting back to square one or something, and that so far we can’t tell?

Regards

PK


We can tell now. Dark energy.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31763
Credit: 13,174,148
RAC: 37,573
United Kingdom
Message 1147519 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 16:42:15 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2011, 16:49:15 UTC

The one thing this site does not explain is the rate of acceleration in the expansion of the universe. With information I have recently seen on TV, perhaps there is another universe outside of ours, with an even greater mass.


Fill a ballon with some flour, blow it up then pop it. Take a slow motion picture of the flour particles. In the first few micro seconds they would be flying out in all directions from the centre of the balloon, increasing in velocity from zero, until they spent all their energy and gravity took over. In a vacuum of space they might well keep going.

My own theory is quite simple. I think there is one Universe and it is infinite, and is populated by an unknown number of black holes. Every so often a local black hole absorbs so much matter that it simply explodes. What we are seeing is simply the aftermath of our own local black hole exploding, as if we were at the centre of that balloon, with stars instead of flour particles.

In time to come the remnants of our local big bang will get swallowed up by other black holes, and they will have their own local big bang. Micro-seconds after a balloon being pricked is equivalent to 13.75 billion years since our own local explosion.

The age of the whole universe is unknown, it is like the night sky with an inexhaustible supply of fireworks, or a cauldron of bubbling soup. Who or what set the fireworks off, or put the soup on the hob is another matter ....

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 2,972,056
RAC: 2,840
United Kingdom
Message 1147567 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 17:59:41 UTC - in response to Message 1147282.

This is one of my favorite universe sites. Check out the interactive link. It points out that no matter what, we only see stars as long as they have fuel. When the normal stars go out, red dwarfs and black holes will be all that's left. When the red dwarfs finally go out, there will be no light in the universe.

Steve


And after this event occurs then at some stage the atomic structure of matter will eventually break down and convert back to energy. Who knows for the universe may only be able to expand to a certain size before the dimensional structure collapses in some way. Could say collapse down to a two dimensional universe and no matter would survive this. Well, somethings going to happen one day we know that for sure but what the final outcome is I suppose is any ones guess.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31763
Credit: 13,174,148
RAC: 37,573
United Kingdom
Message 1147576 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 18:25:50 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2011, 18:28:17 UTC

Who knows for the universe may only be able to expand to a certain size

I think that the Universe, or what we call that thing that we exist in, is not limited to a "size". We live in a FINITE world. Take a 3 foot long plank of wood. I can see the length, width, and depth of it. I can see all areas of its surface.

What we as humans cannot comprehend, is that the universe and space is IN-FINITE, i.e. it goes on forever without any end. We have absolutely no comprehension of that concept, and many who have tried have gone mad.

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 2,972,056
RAC: 2,840
United Kingdom
Message 1147607 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 19:22:48 UTC - in response to Message 1147576.

Who knows for the universe may only be able to expand to a certain size

I think that the Universe, or what we call that thing that we exist in, is not limited to a "size". We live in a FINITE world. Take a 3 foot long plank of wood. I can see the length, width, and depth of it. I can see all areas of its surface.

What we as humans cannot comprehend, is that the universe and space is IN-FINITE, i.e. it goes on forever without any end. We have absolutely no comprehension of that concept, and many who have tried have gone mad.


If the universe is infinite along with space too then there can only be one universe, the one we exist in. We do have problems trying to imagine nothingness
or an infinite universe or universes. This because we can only imagine things with our three dimensional conceptual mind hence we are mentally blind to what multidimensional universes can hold or can do. How did the nothing come about that our universe now fills. Does this nothingness void have a boundary to it ? Lets all go mad trying to think about it or do we need to go mad by trying.
No, for it's pretty obvious that there is no state of nothingness for there has to be something all the time else we would never be here. Most of the time then I suspect this nothingness looks empty when in reality it always has something either in the form of energy or in the form of matter. These are the only two possible states according to the god of science Mr E. We all know that matter comes from the conversion of energy but then where does the initial energy come from? Big question for clearly something must have created this energy in the first place. Well, what ever generated this initial energy had to be created itself first too, um, not necessarily so. For it all came about from nothing and nothing naturally has no initial source otherwise it would not be nothing. The answer to this all is simply that "nothing" is a natural vacuum and it's this vacuum of space that holds the secretes here for this vacuum clearly must hold "potential energy" in some form or other. So what then triggers the event in this vacuum that leads to the creation of a universe....God knows!!

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1147689 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 21:58:38 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2011, 22:04:43 UTC

The real problem in understanding this stuff is the limits of the human experience.

People are comfortable contemplating normal sized things like dust motes or galaxies and the like. But for really big things, like m-branes or really small things, like super-strings, our imagination fails because there is nothing in normal life to condition us to think in those terms.

A few really bright people can get a rudimentary understanding of these things through mathematics but for those of us who are math-a-phobics, we get to imagine these things through the use of similes and metaphors. Sometimes people mistake the metaphor for reality. When a physicist talks of a super-string particle they don't really mean a teeny-tiny little bit of vibrating string. That is just an easy to understand mental image. Same for things like m-branes: there aren't really massive shower curtains hanging in space waiting to bump together and create a new universe. But that is a reasonable mental image for the math.

A good example of this is the atom. We usually think of atoms as being like tiny solar systems, with the nucleus being the sun and electrons orbiting around like planets. But we know that atoms aren't really much like mini solar system. The scales are way off (if the nucleus of a hydrogen atom were the size of the sun then the electron would be out somewhere around the orbit of Pluto, and a whole lot of nothing at all in between.) Also, electrons are not like planets, not discrete little points, instead they are smudged out clouds of probability. But we use the solar system analogy because it makes sense to us, is easy to grasp and makes explaining chemistry a lot easier.\

Sorry for the long-winded post but my central point is: the universe can likely never be accurately imagined by us simply because it is so far beyond normal human experience. So we use math. And we use metaphor to create mental images to explain the math.

Nothingness is just that, nothingness. I think you may be thinking in terms of an infinitely vast space completely devoid of matter and energy. But that is still something: empty space that the universe is expanding into. It is not like that. Nothingness is just that, nothing. It doesn't exist until the expanding universe creates it.

As I have said several times before: the universe is not under any obligation to conform to the human concept of common sense.


And even my description of an electron as like a smudged out cloud of probability is a simile. Just a more useful one than thinking it a solid planet. Similes within similes. Yes, Chris, it really is turtles all the way down. :P
____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 2,972,056
RAC: 2,840
United Kingdom
Message 1147712 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 22:49:50 UTC - in response to Message 1147689.

Nothingness is just that, nothingness. I think you may be thinking in terms of an infinitely vast space completely devoid of matter and energy. But that is still something: empty space that the universe is expanding into. It is not like that. Nothingness is just that, nothing. It doesn't exist until the expanding universe creates it.


The latter part here would suggest that a universe has a boundary although this boundary itself is expanding into new space. Now then, this infinitely vast space completely devoid of matter and energy could actually be a vacuum that's sucking our universe into it. Perhaps were not naturally expanding but actually, under vacuum conditions, being sucked apart in all directions. The boundary edge of the universe as it expands so creates the space that it moves into does defy logic. But, as you rightly imply, unless ones prepared too defy logic you will never be able to comprehend the possible workings going on behind this mysterious science.
What seems illogical to our minds does not mean that it's necessarily illogical to the true workings of the universe.

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1147714 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 22:54:04 UTC - in response to Message 1147712.

Nothingness is just that, nothingness. I think you may be thinking in terms of an infinitely vast space completely devoid of matter and energy. But that is still something: empty space that the universe is expanding into. It is not like that. Nothingness is just that, nothing. It doesn't exist until the expanding universe creates it.


The latter part here would suggest that a universe has a boundary although this boundary itself is expanding into new space. Now then, this infinitely vast space completely devoid of matter and energy could actually be a vacuum that's sucking our universe into it. Perhaps were not naturally expanding but actually, under vacuum conditions, being sucked apart in all directions. The boundary edge of the universe as it expands so creates the space that it moves into does defy logic. But, as you rightly imply, unless ones prepared too defy logic you will never be able to comprehend the possible workings going on behind this mysterious science.
What seems illogical to our minds does not mean that it's necessarily illogical to the true workings of the universe.



You have to take your imagination one step further. You are, I think, still thinking in terms of something being outside the universe (in your example, you are thinking a vacuum exists outside our universe). It doesn't. Nothing exists outside the universe, the universe creates the space as it expands. It is not expanding into anything, it just expands.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mate up with common sense. But the universe doesn't have to. :)

____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1300
Credit: 2,972,056
RAC: 2,840
United Kingdom
Message 1147732 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 23:51:45 UTC - in response to Message 1147714.

You have to take your imagination one step further. You are, I think, still thinking in terms of something being outside the universe (in your example, you are thinking a vacuum exists outside our universe). It doesn't. Nothing exists outside the universe, the universe creates the space as it expands. It is not expanding into anything, it just expands.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mate up with common sense. But the universe doesn't have to. :)


Well this vacuum theory of mine permits me a shortcut to deriving an idea of where energy first came from. It may be a bad shortcut I know and of course taking shortcuts can lead you up the wrong path. But it does not mean that I can't accept your ideas on how the universe expands into the space it creates for itself. You could easily be correct if so how do you think the energy that created our universe first came about. I like the vacuum theory purely because I can then imagine how this energy came about...but yes, using my earthly imagination could be where I'm going wrong here. But there is also something else on my mind and that being "was our universe created at the big bang with all our 11 dimensions in operation and only after creation did most of them become wrapped up then ineffectual" The reason behind this is simple, to explain how illogical events do occur in our universes that make it what it is - is purely down to the fact that during creation it was under the influence of multiple dimensions during it's initial construction. Maybe for only millionths of a second but to understand it all today we need to work it out using multiple dimensional concepts of science. They don't exist as far as I know but to shortcut my question here lets say that at creation the mathematics applicable at that stage meant that 2+2=6...Now we know that logically 2+2=4 but since we have to accept illogical occurrances that may be in a multi active dimensional world 2+2 can equal something completely different. Some thing for you to chew over Kenzie, just some lateral thinking on my behalf here but theres nothing wrong in applying illogicalness if some of the answers we do know do defy our logic.

My bed time know, I've stayed up too long enjoying myself in debate with you.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8452
Credit: 4,150,943
RAC: 1,725
United Kingdom
Message 1147741 - Posted: 1 Sep 2011, 0:15:33 UTC - in response to Message 1147519.
Last modified: 1 Sep 2011, 0:15:54 UTC

Fill a ballon with some flour, blow it up then pop it. Take a slow motion picture of the flour particles. ...

That reminds me of the description of a galaxy by Douglas Adams given in Milliways in his Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

My own theory is quite simple. I think there is one Universe and it is infinite, and is populated by an unknown number of black holes. Every so often a local black hole absorbs so much matter that it simply explodes. What we are seeing is simply the aftermath of our own local black hole exploding, as if we were at the centre of that balloon, with stars instead of flour particles. ...

I like it... Black hole indigestion!


Our accounting discrepancy for the amount of energy/matter in our universe might be resolved by assuming an intrinsic energy density for space-time itself. It could be that the very fabric of space-time could account for the assumed missing/unobserved matter.

Also, does the extreme time dilation around black holes also impinge on the observed effects of both mass and gravity?...


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1147754 - Posted: 1 Sep 2011, 0:45:52 UTC - in response to Message 1147732.
Last modified: 1 Sep 2011, 0:57:36 UTC

You have to take your imagination one step further. You are, I think, still thinking in terms of something being outside the universe (in your example, you are thinking a vacuum exists outside our universe). It doesn't. Nothing exists outside the universe, the universe creates the space as it expands. It is not expanding into anything, it just expands.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mate up with common sense. But the universe doesn't have to. :)


Well this vacuum theory of mine permits me a shortcut to deriving an idea of where energy first came from. It may be a bad shortcut I know and of course taking shortcuts can lead you up the wrong path. But it does not mean that I can't accept your ideas on how the universe expands into the space it creates for itself. You could easily be correct if so how do you think the energy that created our universe first came about. I like the vacuum theory purely because I can then imagine how this energy came about...but yes, using my earthly imagination could be where I'm going wrong here. But there is also something else on my mind and that being "was our universe created at the big bang with all our 11 dimensions in operation and only after creation did most of them become wrapped up then ineffectual" The reason behind this is simple, to explain how illogical events do occur in our universes that make it what it is - is purely down to the fact that during creation it was under the influence of multiple dimensions during it's initial construction. Maybe for only millionths of a second but to understand it all today we need to work it out using multiple dimensional concepts of science. They don't exist as far as I know but to shortcut my question here lets say that at creation the mathematics applicable at that stage meant that 2+2=6...Now we know that logically 2+2=4 but since we have to accept illogical occurrances that may be in a multi active dimensional world 2+2 can equal something completely different. Some thing for you to chew over Kenzie, just some lateral thinking on my behalf here but theres nothing wrong in applying illogicalness if some of the answers we do know do defy our logic.

My bed time know, I've stayed up too long enjoying myself in debate with you.


Here's the real problem with your vacuum theory. Tho it is a little counter-intuitive, physicists and engineers will tell you that vacuums don't actually suck. Areas of high pressure pushes towards areas of low pressure, but the low pressure doesn't actually pull at the high pressure.

If we assume a static amount of matter, energy, dark energy, etc then as the universe expands the pressure should be dropping and thus the expansion should be slowing. Observation shows that it is increasing speed as it expands, not decreases as would be seen from lowering pressure. In order for the pressure to remain high enough to allow increasing expansion extra matter, energy or something has to be created from nothing.

Imagine you have a balloon made of an infinitely elastic material. You take it up into space where there is a reasonable approximation of a vacuum. You pump one cubic meter of gas into the balloon. This represents all the matter and energy in the universe. It would expand, rapidly at first, but would slow down as the pressure lessened. The vacuum of space would not cause it to expand ever faster like we see with the expansion of the universe.

If, however, space itself is being created then there is no need for the increasing complexity of matter/energy creation and an outer vacuum to push into. The universe simply expands. It expands faster and faster (from our perspective) because there is so much space created between us and the limit to how far we can see that pushes out. (Again, from our perspective. From the perspective of someone living on a world 13 billion light years away, it would appear that we are the ones pushing outwards.)
____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile Cheng Fan Soon
Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 05
Posts: 67
Credit: 667,647
RAC: 20
Malaysia
Message 1150353 - Posted: 9 Sep 2011, 6:12:50 UTC - in response to Message 1147173.
Last modified: 9 Sep 2011, 7:04:25 UTC

There have been three main theories on the Universe origin
(1) Steady State
(2) Big Bang
(3) Cyclic or oscillating
There are also many theories upon its ultimate fate, bang, crunch, freeze, rip, bounce ...
Universe fate

Although some astrophysicist said that the Universe is going to end in a big rip (the expending of universe is accelerating and will never stop)
source-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

I would like to believe the universe is a cyclic Universe
Although at this moment our Universe is expending in accelerate speed.
But it will reach a state that
(1) All star will gradually burn out of fuel, some become white dwarf. The more massive star will become black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Stellar_remnants
(2) Black holes gradually increase in mass and their gravity also gradually increase until it reach a point that the gravity is able to stop the expansion of the Universe and the Universe will start to contract. (Steven Hawking first predicted that black holes convert energy into matter.)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-10-30-mass-energy-eyes_x.htm
(3) Another big bag will happen when the Universe is contracted to a single point (at the singularity) and a new Universe will be born.

Some people might argue that the cyclic model of Universe againts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
My view is: When come to black hole, most physics law fail.
Think of this: The star and gasses surounding the black hole has lower energy density compare to the area inside the black hole. But still, we see matter and energy flowing from the lower energy density area (Star and gasses surrounding black hole) into the extreme high energy density area (inside the black hole). Doesn't this seem like the reverse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Q
Send message
Joined: 15 Jun 04
Posts: 216
Credit: 329,924
RAC: 0
Message 1158773 - Posted: 4 Oct 2011, 11:18:58 UTC - in response to Message 1147509.

We can tell now. Dark energy.

So it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371.

Regards

PK

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Does the universe as an expiring date?

Copyright © 2014 University of California