It is said the universe is expanding and some day we could look into the skies and see nothing because we would be too far from anything. I don't know if that is right, but do know existence and heat go together, and that no form of heat is eternal. Am I wrong? Like our sun is finite and without it life on earth could not exist, and surely any source of heat the earth produces is finite. So if the sun is not producing heat and the planets are not producing heat and everything is too far from everything else to have any kind of heat, what happens to the universe?
this is a much debated topic. due to something with the Higgs mechanism, the universe may end in a couple billion years. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ight-a-catastrophic-bubble-could-end-universe
The universe becomes a cold lifeless place as it gradually cools towards absolute zero. But on the lighter side it could be that the accelerating expansion of the universe could increase to the point that everthing is torn apart, even the atoms of our bodies. Wouldn't that be a hoot. It is called the Big Rip - which sounds a bit like the aftermath of eating too many bean burritos.... But since this shouldn't happen in the near future, I ain't sweating it.
The big bang is a theory. The big rip is a theory. Heat death of the universe is a theory, and the big bang arena multiverse is an hypothesis (of mine). In the multi-Big Bang arena landscape there would be multiple big bang arenas and the arena we are in would expand until that expansion was interrupted by intersecting and converging with another expanding Big Bang arena. If that is the case, our visible universe would expand until it converges with an adjacent arena, and the galactic material would converge and form a big crunch. The big crunch would be very very hot and would set entropy back. That big crunch then could bang and a new expanding Big Bang arena could form from the new big bang. And in that new big bang arena stars and galaxies could form, and planets could form around stars, and other life forms could be generated and evolve, and they could be sitting around talking about the same imponderables. You can choose the version of the future you like, lol.
It must be finite. It grows by expanding at a finite rate. It has only had 13-odd Billion years of expansion. Therefore it is finite. btw Have you seen this spam?: Higg Boson for Sale. Have whole collection of Higg Boson. Just in stock. Communicate using later dog particle. Or wear as ugg boot. Only 25 Dollar. Contact on www.Higgxyz.com
What the hell?! Which idiot would fall for this. Dog particle, to be worn as ugg boots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is there an edge to the universe? To deep space? By the way, you can buy a boson. And place them on your bosom.
It used to frustrate me too. People would be promoting completely incompatible ideas, and when you delve into them, they just kind of fade into an abyss of ifs and what ifs. I can't say there is a way out for you, but I found my way through it all after exploring all of the alternatives I could find. It is implied in post #4, but you won't be able to find it fits your needs. A personal view of the cosmology of the universe must include several individual choices from the many options. For example, there is the issue of a beginning. If you are OK with God did it, you are fine; if you are OK with "something from nothing", you are fine. Neither one satisfies me, so I kept looking. You come up with "the universe has always existed", and I chose that one; a personal decision. You have to decide for yourself unless you are OK with "we just don't know". If you decide, let us know, and tell us why you chose what you did, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well being militantly agnostic, for me it's a toss-up between 'God did it', some version of multiverse arena, or just barely possible, some version of infinitely cycling 'monoverse'. No point placing bets. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you select option 4, "we just don't know", and you are not alone. Let's say there are 1 billion people trying to decide which they prefer among the four choices and 250 million choose each one. My score card says "always existed". Next choice you might face is "infinite" or "finite". For me, since "always existed" is like invoking eternity, i.e. no beginning and no ending, we have infinite time, and that breaks the ice by invoking the first of three big "infinities"; time, space, and energy. Next, lets take space, is it infinite or finite. If we have a universe that has always existed we are not invoking the creation or beginning of space, i.e. space must have always existed if the universe has, so the question is, can space be finite. I chose that it can't because I can't imagine it, what would contain it, how could there be an end to it, and how would the end of space look. Curved space time you say? That theory implies a beginning, so it won't work with too well with "always existed". Next, the question of energy. I have no problem invoking the concept of infinite energy in infinite space, and in fact it allows me say space is not empty but contains energy. Personally I can work with that when it comes to the next set of options and decisions one has to make when they are deciding on their personal view of cosmology. Of those supposed 250 million who were with me on "always" existed, the number with me on invoking the three infinities must be down to, let's say, 50,000. Still a good group. And as I go on through the possibilities and choices the number declines until I'm sure I am the only one who would make the same set of choices as I have on the hundreds of questions and thousands of options to choose from. Hence, my point is that if you have a view of cosmology that fits all of the choices you would make on all of the options there are to choose from, you will very likely have a singular view. If being among the group that says "we just don't know" is more preferable to you than to being alone with a singular view, you have a good sized group with you.
As I've pointed out many times, scientists are crappy communicators, especially when trying to communicate with laymen. Strictly speaking, in science a theory is a hypothesis that (by rigorous use of the scientific method) has been proven to be true beyone a reasonable doubt. Evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, these are all theories. Occasionally a theory is falsified, but it happens so rarely that the canon of science does not collapse from lack of integrity. More often, theories are simply revised, often due to improvements in our observation technologies which make new evidence visible. This is why the term "String Theory" should be sent back for revision. It's nothing but some entertaining math and a lot of arm-waving. It is the "String Hypothesis." The Big Bang hypothesis is on the verge of being acknowledged as a theory. But it needs to be defined better. What exactly does it encompass? We are still almost completely clueless about the events that transpired during the first few yoctoseconds (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them = one second) after the Big Bang. Or is it "during the Big Bang?" We don't even know! These days the cosmologists are leaning toward the idea that the "universe" that was created by the Big Bang is not just the matter and energy within our expanding Hubble Volume. It also includes the laws of physics and the space-time continuum itself. So the multi-bang scenario doesn't fit. There was nothing before the Big Bang; the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless because there was no space and no time in which "nothing" could exist. Also no f=ma, no PV=nRT, probably not even 1+1=2. These guys claim that this sentence is meaningless since there is no such thing as an "adjacent arena." This is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. If you're a scientist, you have to choose one which, by rigorous application of the scientific method, appears to be possible. The space-time continuum may be infinite, but most of it is empty. The "universe" these days is defined as the mass and energy spewn by the Big Bang, which occupies only an infinitesimal region in the space-time continuum. And today's cosmologists aren't even very comfortable with the idea that the space-time continuum exists outside the universe. According to them, the phrase, "Seven quintillion light-years from Earth..." is illogical and meaningless. I've spoken to that several times. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says only that entropy tends to increase over time. Spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are allowed: your body, for example is a veritable entropy-reversal-machine! Moreover there is no limit on their size. The Big Bang can be seen as nothing more than a rather large local reversal of entropy. The sum total of the mass and energy in the universe is zero, so it's not true that "something came from nothing." It is just the organization of that nothing which has become more complex. I.e., the universe is nothing more than a textbook example of a local reversal of entropy which is inexorably correcting itself as we speak. I even have a model for that point of view. Just graph time on a log scale and you'll put the Big Bang at minus infinity. Just because we perceive time as passing at a constant rate doesn't mean that it does. After all, we also perceive electromagnetic radiation at a frequency higher than ultraviolet as black, when a great many species of birds and insects can see it and use it for telling the sexes apart or choosing the ripest nectar. This should satisfy both camps. The 21st-century cosmologists, who insist that there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even space or time. The folks like you, who think the universe always existed. You're both right! The first instant of the Big Bang stretches all the way back to minus infinity. It also satsifies me, because it allows the space-time continuum to exist infinitely in all directions from our Hubble Volume. I'm not a scientist, merely a former-future scientist. So my opinion means nothing. My models, on the other hand, may prove useful. Help yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How can the universe maintain its energy forever? Suns burn out. Surely volcanic planets expend their heat and get cold. When things get very, very cold light slows down and matter changes, and is there anything that would stop the universe from getting colder and colder until it no longer exists?
Space and time were created with the Big Bang, I thought that was what was expanding, making stuff more spread out. Are you saying that an infinite amount of space time was made instantly, and that it is all still expanding. Why would matter only exist in one small part of it? @Rita The speed of light is constant. Nothing can make it slow down or speed up.
If I Google 'bounce cosmologies' for one instance of a suitable search term, just the first five or so entries present what looks like a wealth of diversities. Could make a layman wonder just how monolithically united in perspective are today's cosmologists. Still a theorists playground methinks.
