Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by arauca, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Maybe it happens tomorrow. Maybe in a billion years. Physicists have long predicted that the universe may one day collapse, and that everything in it will be compressed to a small hard ball. New calculations from physicists at the University of Southern Denmark now confirm this prediction – and they also conclude that the risk of a collapse is even greater than previously thought

    Sooner or later a radical shift in the forces of the universe will cause every little particle in it to become extremely heavy. Everything - every grain of sand on Earth, every planet in the solar system and every galaxy – will become millions of billions times heavier than it is now, and this will have disastrous consequences: The new weight will squeeze all material into a small, super hot and super heavy ball, and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.

    This violent process is called a phase transition and is very similar to what happens when, for example water turns to steam or a magnet heats up and loses its magnetization. The phase transition in the universe will happen if a bubble is created where the Higgs-field associated with the Higgs-particle reaches a different value than the rest of the universe. If this new value results in lower energy and if the bubble is large enough, the bubble will expand at the speed of light in all directions. All elementary particles inside the bubble will reach a mass, that is much heavier than if they were outside the bubble, and thus they will be pulled together and form supermassive centers.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-collapse-universe-closer.html#jCp

    What do you think ? What about the book of Revelation in the New Testament 2000 years ago
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No they don't.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350
    I agree...
    The article first off surmises that "IF" a bubble forms in the universe where the Higgs particle-associated Higgs-field will reach a different value than the rest of the universe....Then towards the end it says, "it is actually also possible, that it will not happen at all".... an example of scientific sensationalism and journalism.

    The actual scientific model, based on evidence from WMAP, suggests that the Universe has a flat topology and will more then likely expand forever.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    Maybe it happens tomorrow. Maybe in a billion years. Physicists have long predicted that the universe may one day collapse, and that everything in it will be compressed to a small hard ball. New calculations from physicists at the University of Southern Denmark now confirm this prediction – and they also conclude that the risk of a collapse is even greater than previously thought
    "
    " Physicists ( plural ) have long predicted " How do you expect to understand .
    I think it would be safer make physical experiments and less on paper work, . Even on the CERN work there was not unanimous agreement between experimentalists and theorists.
     
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,086
    Revelations appears the be the ramblings of an insane person or someone on hallucinogenic drugs.
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Called what ever you want , We don't know much about our own planet and here we start to talk about the universe , Let' don't pretend about our wisdom . As for me is safer to say I don't know then out lash bullshit.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Exactly, the Bible is pretend wisdom. There are a few exceptions in the atheist parts.
     
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    There is one difference about 2000 years or more ,

    I am not against science to improve life for man kind , but when you start to talk beyond our limit , the it becomes aggravating, because the common man starts to disbelieve in science
     
  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    I found the final paragraph to be interesting:

    "At CP3 several physicists are convinced that the Higgs particle is not an elementary particle, but that it is made up of even smaller particles called techni-quarks. Also the theory of super symmetry predicts the existence of yet undiscovered particles, existing somewhere in the universe as partners for all existing particles. According to this theory there will be a selectron for the electron, a fotino for the photon, etc."

    Just keep makin' 'em up - good for job security.
     
  13. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    origin

    Likely ergot, from a fungus that grows on rye. It can be used as a precursor to LSD. Leads to intense hallucination, manic activity(like writing) and often leads to death. Some historians think the cause of the Salem Witchcraft trials was the behavior of girls suffering from ergot poisoning.

    arauca

    It used to be considered a possibility, but we now know that will not happen in that way. What the scientists in Denmark are talking about is different, they are talking about another bubble of spacetime erupting inside of our Universe, destroying and replacing our Universe. The Big Crunch does not seem possible given what we now know.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    Why think something were we don't have any control and we don't know a damn thing about but pretend as we know but because it comes something on a piece of paper we should give credence , we don't know if the universe is open or a close system , Shit do you want to talk hallusination .
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350
    Evidence from WMAP and other probes actually point to a FLAT Universe.
     
  16. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    paddoboy

    I don't think arauca knows what that means. A closed Universe would be something like he is talking about, gravity would eventually have stopped expansion and started collapsing, sometimes called a cycling Universe with a whole series of such things, a flat Universe would expand forever, but always going slower due to the influence of gravity, never quite stopping and an open Universe would expand forever, even accelerating that expansion.

    Our Universe hasn't followed any of those profiles. Early in time the expansion slowed as would be expected for the influence of gravity, then, about 5 billion years in the slowing stopped and the Universe sort of coasted, about 3 billion years ago the expansion began to accelerate. We've gone from early being gravity dominated to middle being kind of neutral to late actually being pushed by a force we didn't know was there, Dark Energy, these weren't abrupt changes, more like a sine wave on a graph. While we don't know what it is, we can see and measure it's effects and calculate the energy/mass required to do what we see being done and it works out to 70% of the mass of the Universe. That's a buttload of energy! And DE works across great distances, but is evidently very weak(weaker than gravity, the previous wimp)at short ones, it has little effect on gravity bound systems, they are not being forced apart, DE works mostly at galactic distances.

    I think DE, instead of working like gravity or magnetic fields is a "uniform" field, each part of spacetime contains a certain amount of it and it works by the accumulation of spacetime between large masses increasing the total force. At the beginning there was less spacetime and the Universe was denser, therefore gravity dominated. This balance shifted as the total amount of spacetime increased and the density dropped, they balanced fairly well for some time, but in the late period the density is dropping, matter has organized itself in large blobs and there is more spacetime(and more DE)between them. It seems we're in an open Universe after all. Enjoy the ride!

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350
    That makes sense Grumpy, I must say......
    But didn't the WMAP results show that omega [critical density] was very close to 1, within a very small error margin?
    This actually confirmed the Boomerang and MAXIMA results to a higher degree.
    And the discovery of the DE component and accelerated expansion rate does point to an open Universe.
    So how do we reconcile the obvious contradiction, or is it my misunderstanding of the situation.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Our perception and therefore calculations of the the universe is based on an earth-centric reference. However, since there is no preferred reference, other space-time references will see the same universe in different ways with different calculations.

    For example, in the reference of a more a dense zone of matter, where space-time is highly contracted, it will see the same universe differently as shown below. Distances between objects will appear closer as space-time contracts down the well. As the observed energy spectra from the universe go down the space-time well, these will appear to more blue shifted compared to what we see on earth since the well will compress wavelengths. That means the energy content of the universe will appear higher in this dense reference than on earth. Below if you are at the bottom of the well, light and distances become more contracted and therefore, with mass invariant, universal gravity appears stronger due to less observational distance.

    If you think in terms of energy conservation, this blue shift (appearance of higher energy photons) in a contracted space-time reference, relative to our earth reference, adds energy to their perception of the universe. Where does this extra energy come from since earth can't see it? It would appear hidden in our reference since we would not see this blue shift; dark energy.

    The answer is, since universal distances appear closer in the contracted reference (at the bottom of the well), the gravitational potential energy of the universal would appear less; all the mass seems closer. This difference or loss in gravitational potential energy supplies the blue shifted energy difference. This is mediated via the contraction of space-time due to higher local GR which integrates gravity.

    So we would need to average all references from space to black holes to accounts for the dark energy (blue shift) and dark matter (appears to be higher gravity) we see in our reference that denser objects create in the universal balance.

    From the earth reference, the universe appears to expand for ever. But black holes see the universe as being close and dense and hot due to distances contraction and blue shift. Below, the earth reference is near the top of this generic well while neutron star is near the bottom.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350

    Not sure what you are on about, but over large scales, the Universe is quite Isotropic and hemogeneous.
    In effect, the Universe we see from Earth in all directions, is the same as the Universe seen from a planet in a galaxy a million L/years away.
    Your reference to a BH is Interesting. But I will point out that a BH is black and all we see are its effects on space/time and matter/energy.
    Once inside the EH of a BH, one is essentially cut off from the rest of the Universe. All paths, all directions lead to the Singularity.

    More Importantly, you seem to be confusing the observed expansion of the Universe, with gravitational lensing and warping.
    Noting of course that the very distant galaxies we do see are near the paramaters of our observable Universe and will in time, move beyond our observable Universe and effectively out of sight.

    The blue shifted galaxies we do see in the main, are those gravitationally bound within our local group and just beyond.
     
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,260
    maybe/if...anything and everything we see, is from Earth - so that is all that we can perceive and calculate - ?!
    maybe/if...a single frame of reference ?!

    maybe/if...there is not?!
    maybe/if...there is?!
    maybe/if...we do not know...yet?!

    maybe/if...In effect, the Universe AS WE SEE IT from Earth (our frame of reference?!) in all directions, is NOT the same as the Universe AS SEEN from a planet in a galaxy a million L/years away inside the EH of a BH, that is essentially cut off from the rest of the Universe (it's frame of reference?!) ?!
    maybe/if... their perception and therefore their calculations based on their different frame of reference of the the universe may be different because of their different frame of reference ?!

    I've got to say wellwisher, as far as I know, mankind/science has yet to come up with the complete rulebook/schematic/Law Digest of The Universe. And while none of the "maybe/if'"'s that I parsed out of your Post are completely ruled out by by all aspects of our current known and theorized perception and calculations of The Universe...well...

    ...well, wellwisher, I'm just not to sure if all those "maybe/if"'s tied up all together are going to fly very far in This Universe!?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350


    Of course discussing a FoR inside the EH of a BH is a thought experiment, and as we know what is predicted by GR inside the EH, by any unlucky explorer to fall in, could never be relayed outside.

    In discussing such a FoR, best estimates would have the outside Universe, [all 360 degrees of it] appearing as a spheroid type of arrangement above the head of the observer [presuming of course, the observer fell in feet first]
    This is gravitational lensing/warping at its most severest.
     
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,260
    ...so...
    ...even if the observers on that planet are experiencing...
    ...?!...even though...it...
    ...!?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,350





    Rather a disjointed post to say the least......

    But standard cosmology and the "cosmological principle" states that " on larger scales, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic. In part data from the CMBR itself seems to confirm these assumptions.

    The second point is that once anything is inside the EH of a BH, all paths lead one way to the Singularity. There is no path heading towards the EH, and no signal can ever head that way.
     

Share This Page