Death of the Universe

[*Jess♥]

I like this quote as I do not agree with the 'generally accepted' idea of heat death.

"Imagine it this way: the Universe is this push and pull, ebb and flow: entropy vs. gravity. While entropy is always increasing, gravity is as well. And in the form of black holes, the Universe will eventually coalesce into one. But JUST before it gets to that singularity, that zero-volume, infinite density singularity (it never ACTUALLY reaches that limit, jpetrucelli, just like entropy never reaches its limit), the quantum gravitational forces become repulsive rather than attractive, and entropy takes back over in a marvelous explosion we know as a Big Bang. And so it goes, expand, contract, expand, contract, etc."

It offends me that programs come on TV describing this 'heat death' as a fact, as an inevitability. when they don't even understand what dark matter etc is yet? how can they possibly cite this garbage as if it's a done deal? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24486.0

[LordSpleach]

Well I think it about that scientists always have that pressure to release results on a constant basis. So, when they publish their results periodically, analysts and others involved the scientific community like to constantly talk about and it snowballs.

[*Jess♥]

I see what you're saying.

I think it's pretty bad though, when People like Professor Brian Cox make TV programs describing these events as though they are already confirmed. I think it can make a lot of people feel very depressed and hopeless.

It's taken me a lot of research to ascertain that the theory is actually quite flimsy. I mean, they just don't even take into account things like dark matter and dark energy etc.

Also, there is a very low understanding of things like entropic gravity and quantum gravity.

[LordSpleach]

I agree. When it comes to TV programs though, that's when it becomes part-sensationalism.

[Aether]

i like your quote, but its just common sense to me Ryuki...

its like phsyics and metaphysics converging again.

i didnt use to like the idea of a closed universe or a big crunch, i liked the idea of an open universe that went on forever and ever (Amen-Ra), but the more i looked into it and my mind expanded, the more i realised that i was missing the point.

All of nature expands and contracts, ebbs and flows, it makes sense knowing what little we do about the nature of the universe that the microcosm we can observe is a reflection of the macrocosm.

the thing is thats not scientific or precise enough for some of our human minds. oh well.

[*YoungGuyver]

The prediction of the end is based on the results of the time.  Science is always ongoing.  It would take a million eons of know everything in order to make a final conclusion on the matter.  That is why we 'make predictions based on what we already know'.

 

They set up the gravitational frame work for detemining whether a big crunch or freeze.  Then they measured the density.  Anything 'funky' like Black holes going super attractive or Dark matter boundaries going beyond their galaxy would have to really go screwing to worry about AT THIS POINT.  In other words, from what we've seen, we don't need to worry about them for this prediction, but the research on those is still underway as well.

 

So IT LOOKS LIKE heat death, but that's not to worry anyway, because you will be dead looooong before the Universe is.

 

Still, if there is a big Crunch instead, there is an idea in string theory that the Universe can Bounce back and make another big bang out of it.  The catch is that every particle/string must be compressed in the singularity in order to attain the energy to make the bounce.  We die to give birth to a new universe.   A poetry to it

[LordSpleach]

If we have a big crunch can we have this happen?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahHThBjDB0'>

[*Jess♥]

heh heh....

 

I just hope more people can keep an open mind. I think that there are many people who are not scientific, they take the scientists word for it like a new gospel.

 

My study is far from complete also, probably far less complete than some, but during my studies I have found lots of problems with current theories.

The jury is still out on the big bang theory even.  I have a few candidates for the various evidence of the big bang. for example, red shift could be due to gravity or 'warp ' bubbles in space. maybe it is 'bad science' or just philosophy, but that is where good science comes from in the first place.

 

i appreciate that heat death is what it looks like will happen, discounting the things we don't know..

but I have an issue with that. I mean, a hyena looks like a wild dog in many ways, but it is more closely related to cats. I don't think men of science ought to be doing such silly things like making guesses as to what it looks like will happen.

it's just too far reaching.

[*YoungGuyver]

I agree that we should not treat the 'word of science' as gospel.  My problem is that there are SO many rednecks out there now touting a 'scientific theory' that falls flat on it's ass if even an iota of math/chemistry or experimentation is applied to it.  Real scientists are supposed to test their own ideas through these meens BEFORE submitting it to the public realm, before pear review.

 

That Hyena thing is a perfect example though.  It is evidence telling us what it is, and not just 'opinion'.  Not just wild speculation and imagination, but a strategy was put together to test and determine.  Creativity was there, in formulating the strategy and guidlines for the classification and such.

[*YoungGuyver]

If we have a big crunch can we have this happen?

 

Stephen Hawking originally thought that time would move backwards during the crunch, but had to agree with one of his students that it would not.  Although gravity is pulling the Universe inward, any lateral movement maintains it's original momentum.  So time still moves forward, despite the effects of time dialation due to the energy states of the spatial fabric in highly intense gravitational areas (time slows down around a singularity, it would slow down during the dense period of the crush for those experiencing it.  But no reversal)

[*Jess♥]

I agree that we should not treat the 'word of science' as gospel.  My problem is that there are SO many rednecks out there now touting a 'scientific theory' that falls flat on it's ass if even an iota of math/chemistry or experimentation is applied to it.  Real scientists are supposed to test their own ideas through these meens BEFORE submitting it to the public realm, before pear review.

Ah yes, it is easy to come up with a fancy idea if you haven't studied extensively first.

I agree things need to be tested, ideally.

I wish i had the means to test my own ideas. All I can do is to put it out there and see if a real scientist can understand where I am coming from and see what I have seen, then do the number crunching on it. It's tough because it is nearly impossible to demonstrate the depth to which I have thought about these things, the intensity with which I have studied. I'm no Stephen Hawking but I'm a pretty intelligent guy, among the top 5% for sure. my strengths are in spatial thinking, and I really suck at maths and reading.

This mean, while I can't always use the correct words or utilise physics formulas, I actually do understand these things a lot more than most people.

But then.. of course, I cannot expect anyone to just take my word for it. [emote=monkey]phew[/emote]

 

sure, of course I understand why they make these conclusions. I made the same conclusion myself. Incidentally, I don't call it Entropy, I call it Balance. also, I don't consider it disordered energy, I consider it exquisitely ordered energy. difference in perspective, same concept.

But anyway, even though I made this same conclusion, I also realise that the conclusion is wrong because there are forces that are still unexplained. you cannot reach a conclusions when you are certain of missing data. it's not proper.

If forensics did that, then we would have innocent people on death row..... oh wait...

yes this has happened hasn't it? So shouldn't we stop doing this?

as a species, we should know better than to make assumptions. we need to wait until we get the full picture before making our conclusions.

 

sure, one could argue that even with all the extra data such as dark matter etc, the universe would eventually balance out. it stands to reason does it not? actually... no. because to do that you would have to have a method of cancelling out one energy system. you can never cancel out completely, unless you have a universe with equal parts energy and equal parts anti-energy.

 

I was looking at an idea that the universe is a very complex sine wave. and that nothingness is a flat line.

well if the universe did start out as nothing and it was simply a flat line, then what 'struck the note' ?

in other words, what started the big bang. what was the catalyst? most of these ideas call for there being something 'outside the universe'. who knnows.

[*YoungGuyver]

The problem in waiting for all the answers is that we will never get -all- the answers.  It's a BIG universe, and there is always more to study.  Better to form an opinion with what you have, as we will never be a god.  That way we can at least build sky scrapers, cure a few sick people, and maybe start on that moon colony.

[*Jess♥]

for practical things I would agree.

but in the case of the eventual fate of the universe we have maybe 1% of the data.

I'd say we should wait until we have at least 50% of the data before making an informed guess.

until then we keep studying and do more brilliant stuff.

 

 

just for fun....

Things we can safely predict:-

seismology, sure we pretty much got that down.

weather, it's still fairly unpredictable but we are pretty clued up and get it more or less right most of the time.

human behaviour, some people can be pretty unpredictable but psychology is getting better all the time.

general movement of the planets in our solar system. we have tracked the motion pretty well.

movement of celestial bodies even including galaxies. it's pretty large scale of time but the motion can be estimated.

likelihood of certain stars having a planet that contains life, pretty good detection systems in place.

dark matter... nope, we're pretty much 'in the dark' about that!

other phenomena... yeah we got no clue.

movement of galaxies in the far future, after our sun has stopped supporting life... not really.

predictions about the entire universe including all the phenomena we haven't found or detected yet and also what happens with the dark matter that we aren't even sure about, and the behaviour of the physics which we haven't got a fully working standard model for yet, for a time so far in the future that the constellations won't exist, the galaxies probably won't even be the same..... no. no way.  we don't even know if the universe is an open or closed system. we don't even have a rock solid confirmation of whether the big bang actually happened. or how.  it's still theoretical.

[*V Guyver]

One of the older theories was that there is no universal Cycles. As a child in grade school, I read one theory in which our galaxies will continue to gain further and further distance from the center of creation/big bang. Eventually as time and distance pass, the matter around them will start to fade, destabilize everything until everything returns into subspace. I guess this could be caused by some form of energy exhaustion?

Another more recent theory was that all the galaxies would rebound until they kept colliding, causing black holes to keep combining until reality itself was confused.

In all honesty, I don't worry so much about this. It's far beyond our time, and I'd rather we focus on the energy, food, water, and ecological crises on our foot steps. We still have to deal with the upcoming loss of our magnetic field. 

[*Jess♥]

I worry about this because we are all part of the universe.

my consciousness being a manifestation of the universe, in a localised form... I have love for the the whole thing.

It's an existential dilemma more than a practical one.

[*YoungGuyver]

if there indeed was nothingness before the universe, then there should be no problem with nothingness afterwards.  It would be an equalibreum, a returning to an original state perhaps.  Existance being a chaotic bubble on an ocean of calm.  A dream in the middle of a quiet night.

 

Does that sooth your soul a little?