The Fate Of The Universe - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#42220
I don't know if many of our forum members have read A Brief History Of Time, by Dr. Stephen Hawking, but if you haven't, and have an interest in atro-physics, then I highly recommend it.

The most intriguing topic which is discussed in this book is the fate of our universe. For those of you unfamiliar with this, I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

As the saying goes "everything that has a beginning must also have an end," this may also be true for our universe. Our universe originiated from a phenomenon which is referred to by science as the "Big Bang." Although it is not known what caused this event to occur, it is known that it indeed happened. Edwin Hubble measured the wavelength of light eminating from various stars viewable from Earth. He noticed that some stars which were known to be composed of the same gasses, were emiting different wavelengths of light. This was very confusing, as gasses which fuel the fusion of a star each emit a unique wavelength of light.

The Doppler effect is another phenomenon which effects the wavelength of sound as perceived by a stationary object, while the source of the sound is in motion. For example, if a car is coming toward you at a high rate of speed, the sound of that car will appear to be higher pitched, then when it passes you and starts to move away--in which case it will now sound lower pitched. The Doppler Effect also holds true not only for sound waves, but also for light waves. If a source emitting light is coming toward you at a high rate of speed, the wavelength of that light will increase, thus appear to be more blue, and as the light passes you and moves away, the light coming toward you will look more red. The reason colors apply is because on the light spectrum, red has the lowest frequency (or longest wavelength, since the speed of light is constant), and violet or blue has the highest frequency (or shortest wavelength).

After applying the Doppler Effect to his findings, Hubble realized that, in fact, all stars were not only moving away from the Earth, but also away from eachother. This meant that the universe was expanding in every direction. However another discovery added a unique twist to his findings. The further a star was away from the Earth, the more red shift it had from it light. This meant that not only were these stars getting farther apart, but that as they got farther their rate of expansion increased. This rate of expansion was aptly dubbed the "Hubble Constant."

(The best analogy for this expansion of the universe can be likened to a loaf of bread. When you place the dough in the oven, every point in that loaf will get farther and farther from every other part of that loaf, until it is done baking.)

This discovery is perhaps the best evidence that the Big Bang indeed occured. A massive explosion would create an effect on the contents of the universe itentical to what we are indeed observing. Science has discovered the origin of our universe, but what will its fate be?

In the book "A Brief History Of Time," Dr. Stephen Hawking discusses the many possibilites of how our universe might "end up."

The first theory is popularly referred to as the "Big Crunch." In this instance, it is believed that the amount of matter existing within our universe, combined with the force of gravity from that matter, will not allow the universe to expand indefinitely. In fact, it is believe that in this instance, the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe will eventually cease, and reverse-acceleration will begin. It is believed that the universe will, from this point, begin to shrink, and (eventually) compress into one point in space. This point will be characteristic of the singularity of a black whole. A singularity is a point in space which is infinitely small, and yet, infinitely dense.

The second theory envisions a universe which does not contain enough matter to overcome and counter the acceleration of expansion of the universe. In this instance, the universe will continute to expand indefinitely. At a point, every particle will be so far away from every other particle that the universe will (to put it simple) "freeze." Because all sources of energy, and all forms of matter, are so far from eachother, nothing will be able to surive--not galaxies, not solar systems, not stars, not planets, not anything. The universe will become an infinite expanse of vastly spaced points of matter and energy.

The final theory presents a state of equilibrium for the universe. If the amount of matter, combined with the force of gravity from that matter, is equal to the force from the Big Bang, then the universe will expand for a time, until it eventually stops expanding completely. However, it will not being to shrink, as stated in the second theory, because the force of gravity has reached a state of equilibrium with the force of the Big Bang.

So what fate do you believe will come to pass?

Some trivial theories exist, such as the existance of "dark matter" and "dark energy," which (if proven true) could drastically effect the fate which will occur. However these two theories are for another discussion, and at another time, for I am thoroughly exhausted from describing all of this. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed it!
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#42356
Holy Shit Smash...I just picked this up...I've only read through the first two chapters so far so I don't read this thread all the way yet...I'll come back and comment when I can...I'm a big fan of this type of science...though it makes my brain hurt in strange ways....

Anyway if I can comprehend most of it I'll let you know what I think...
User avatar
By Truth-a-naut
#42364
I've ABH of T and liked it quite a bit, enough to borrow it from my school library indefinatly.

Smash if you liked ABH of T I recommend you pick up another one of his books entitled 'The Universe in a Nutshell', its quite good but ABH of T being his best to date.
By Classical Liberal
#42400
Smash, do you remember something about the universe being positvely curved, negatively curved, or not curved at all? Could you explain it to us (since I forgot about it) :lol:

All I really remember was that...

Positive Curvature (Circular)= Collapse/"Big Crunch"
Negative (Weird looking, curving back on itself)= Eternal expansion/"Big Chill"
None (flat)= Equilibrium

I think that eternal expansion is most likely because of dark energy, but I wish it would reach equilibrium.
By smashthestate
#42453
Image

I think you're refering to this, am I right?

Each color line represents a different event, so I will try to explain each:

Orange - This line would represent the "Big Crunch" universe. In this universe, the critical density is not enough to overcome the force of the Big Bang, and thus, will eventually collapse into the Big Crunch.

Green - This is simply a more drawn-out version of the orange curve. Green repersents a universe in within which the critical density is indeed not great enough to overcome the force of the Big Bang, but this version would not collapse upon itself in as little amount of time as universe that the orange line represents.

Blue - This line represents the universe which will reach equilibrium. In this case, the critical density of the universe and the expansion force from the Big Bang are equal, and at a point in time, expansion will cease, but shrinking will not occur. This universe will be come truly static.

Red - This is the version of the universe referred to as the "Big Chill." In this universe, the critical density is not strong enough to overcome the force of expansion from the Big Bang, and expansion of the universe will continue indefinitely, resulting in a cold death for the universe.
By Classical Liberal
#42467
Thank you, but I was thinking about something different like this...

Image

These curvatures would determine the future of the universe.
By smashthestate
#42496
This is the same thing, just presented in a visually different way. Space-time is not curved in one way consistently throughout the universe. It is not a perfect sphere, or a flat plane, or a negative curvature plane. For example, black holes have a unique local effect on space-time.
By Classical Liberal
#42498
This is true, but it is supposed to take account the curvature of the universe in general, instead of irregularities like stars and galaxies. I know that the graph was saying the same thing, but I was talking about these cool diagrams instead. Sorry about that.
By Ásatrúar
#47892
Creeper wrote:Thank you, but I was thinking about something different like this...


If, infact, the "Big bang" theory is correct, wouldn't the universe be spherical? In an explosion, matter bursts out in all directions. If you set a bomb in the middle of nothingness, wouldn't the explosion be spherical? Likewise, if it is to be an end, it would be crushed like a submarine that can't stand the pressure. A pleasant end. ;)
By God is dead
#50402
So what about parallel universes? When you make a choice there are numerous possible outcomes, some theories state that since the big bang seperate events started occuring simultaniously. There events happening at the same time in the same place spawned multiple universes. This process occured all the, and so states that in theory, there are many of me,in parallel universes, choosing to make different decisions, at the same time as me...if that makes sence....But would the same fate of the universe affect all these parralel universes?? Surly if there are an inifnate amount of outcomes, one of them has to has something special happening, that wouldnt happen any other way....if that makes sence...probably not :hmm:
By U-235
#51101
basicaly string theory states that the basic building block of the universe are tiny little strings, these strings can be ina closed loop or an open hair like strand, various modes of vibration corrispond to different particles, and if any one is unfarmilar with the acronym 'GUT' it stands for ' Grand Unification Theories', or "Grand Unified Theory', im not sure anymore.

to elaborate on states comments on dark matter, physisists believe dark matter could be conposed of one of the following things
-WIMPS: weakly interaction massive particles, this includes neutrinos
-MACHOs: Massive Compact Halo Object

I have read both the universe in a nutshell, brief history of time, the theory of everything, and am reading the fate of the universe
By U-235
#51103
Ásatrúar wrote:
Creeper wrote:Thank you, but I was thinking about something different like this...


If, infact, the "Big bang" theory is correct, wouldn't the universe be spherical? In an explosion, matter bursts out in all directions. If you set a bomb in the middle of nothingness, wouldn't the explosion be spherical? Likewise, if it is to be an end, it would be crushed like a submarine that can't stand the pressure. A pleasant end. ;)

There was no middle to the bigbang, the Bang happend every where at the same time
By smashthestate
#51106
uranium_235 wrote:every where at the same time

Actually, that is not proven, and there are many top theoretical physicists that believe that the Big Bang was, in essence, like a reverse black hole, in "super fastforward mode," if you will. In this theory, the Big Bang indeed did have a center, and the universe is expanding outward from that center.
By U-235
#416430
smashthestate wrote:
uranium_235 wrote:every where at the same time

Actually, that is not proven

Of course it is proven, if it did not occur everywhere, there would be some parts of the universe treated differently then other parts, giving a preferred or correct frame of reference, which is in violation of relativity.

smashthestate wrote:, and there are many top theoretical physicists that believe that the Big Bang was, in essence, like a reverse black hole, in "super fastforward mode," if you will. In this theory, the Big Bang indeed did have a centre, and the universe is expanding outward from that centre

See above. I would also like to add that no "top theoretical physicist", would claim that the universe was a sphere, which one must infer from how you are explaining it. A sphere is not a symmetrical shape. Meaning, that in the process of expanding, different coordinates in the sphere would register different rates at which an object is moving away from it. This cannot be true, for it violates relativity. A correct analogy for the expansion of the universe would be an expanding balloon, with all the universe on the 2-D surface. To apply that analogy to our universe would give us a 3-D surface on a 4-D analogue of a three dimensional sphere.



btw...sorry for necropost
User avatar
By Iain
#416463
The Dark Rower wrote:does anyone know what the string theory is?
String theory is more properly called M-theory as there are lots of different string theories and M-theory is the latest attempt to unite them.

The size of the strings is pretty small. If you compare a string to a human, the difference in size (proportionally) is about the same as comparing a human to the size of the whole universe.

String theory also relies on there being lots of space dimensions - about 10 I think. All but 3 are curled up very small so we can't directly detect them.

String theory, or M-theory, does not have a great deal of experimental evidence to back it up. Some people (e.g. Roger Penrose) think that string theory might turn out to be wrong and the strings and extra dimensions don't exist at all. Penrose has recently proposed an alternative.
By fastspawn
#416465
why do the other dimensions have to be small as strings? Why can't they be "normal"
User avatar
By Iain
#416498
fastspawn wrote:why do the other dimensions have to be small as strings? Why can't they be "normal"
I might get this a little wrong, but basically if they were normal, we should be able to experience them. If there is a fourth spatial dimention, why can't we measure it, move in it or see it? You might have a sci-fi idea of a fourth dimension as some alternate reality which confuses things ; but a spatial dimension is just a direction we can move in, or perceive things from.

Another problem is that gravity follows the "inverse square" law; but if there are more big dimensions it should be an inverse cube or inverse hypercube etc. in which case gravity would be much weaker than it is now - far too weak for stars and planets to ever have formed.
User avatar
By STA
#416500
I read it about 1 month ago. If the universe had a negative curve we could make wormholes to the past, which would alter the course of the future, which would be very weird, so I think that there is probably a positive curve. I hope there is a "Flat" universe, meaning that there is balance and the universe neither expands or contracts, but this is unlikely, if I had a choice between the two predominant theories I would go with the closed or "Big Crunch" theory.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I have never been wacko at anything. I never thou[…]

I think a Palestinian state has to be demilitariz[…]

no , i am not gonna do it. her grandfather was a[…]

did you know it ? shocking information , any comme[…]