Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

The end of the universe and eschatology


Recommended Posts

After recently re-watching the first episode of wonders of the universe it raised the question in my mind again about the end of the universe and what a anticlimax it all is.

If we now think that dark energy driven expansion will eventually spread out the universe so much that even all the protons are split apart then nothing happens forever (even though nothing can actually be said to be happening because, thermodynamically speaking, the universe is completely homogeneous and so entropy cannot increase, therefore the arrow of time has ceased being useful and time has stopped :) !!) it seems like an awefully meek ending to something so grand!

Now don't get me wrong all of this will happen long after we're all gone and so the time we live in now is truely the best time to exist (especially for astronomy), however as i'm not too familiar with what the various religious eschatologies are i wondered how they deal with this infinite nothingness??

I appreciate this a slighly deep question :D however i guess its because we all think of everything having a beginning and an ending that i think i god created everything the He couldn't be happy with that situation??

Thanks for yout thoughts and i apologise if this offends anyone

Cheers

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not actually be correct as "infinity" is a mere concept, not a reality.

I think it was Michio Kaku on one of his documentaries that said at the end of time, after all matter had decayed, there would be nothing left but a low-level photonic "soup". He then went onto say that eventually these photons having lost all energy with effectively a zero wavelength then start to slip backwards in time.

What he didn't say, or explain, is that this may solve the paradox of universal creation.

If all the photons in existence eventually go backwards in time, then in theory, they will all end up simultaneously at the point of origin.. I.e. The Big Bang.

If this is correct (I'll have to find that documentary) it would technically solve the great mystery of the universe by stating the fact that it was created at the end of time, rather than the beginning and all existence is a closed loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not actually be correct as "infinity" is a mere concept, not a reality.

I think it was Michio Kaku on one of his documentaries that said at the end of time, after all matter had decayed, there would be nothing left but a low-level photonic "soup". He then went onto say that eventually these photons having lost all energy with effectively a zero wavelength then start to slip backwards in time.

What he didn't say, or explain, is that this may solve the paradox of universal creation.

If all the photons in existence eventually go backwards in time, then in theory, they will all end up simultaneously at the point of origin.. I.e. The Big Bang.

If this is correct (I'll have to find that documentary) it would technically solve the great mystery of the universe by stating the fact that it was created at the end of time, rather than the beginning and all existence is a closed loop.

I like that, shame I wont be around to see if that pans out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don't get me wrong all of this will happen long after we're all gone and so the time we live in now is truely the best time to exist (especially for astronomy), however as i'm not too familiar with what the various religious eschatologies are i wondered how they deal with this infinite nothingness??

I appreciate this a slighly deep question :) however i guess its because we all think of everything having a beginning and an ending that i think i god created everything the He couldn't be happy with that situation??

Thanks for yout thoughts and i apologise if this offends anyone

From the Forum Code of Conduct:

The “not allowed” list is pretty short, but it should be remembered that what can seem to be light-hearted comments and fun to one person, can be offensive to another. This is especially true in politics and religion. Therefore:

• No politics

• No religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opps my bad! First time i've posted in here and i will keep that i mind next time in delve into the incomprehensible!

Blackparticle that was something i has thought about but not heard that once everything has spread out and time and space to do really exist per se it could all start again as i guess that is the 'nothing' out of which the big bang took place or the creatio ex nihilio. Its the eternal return which Nietsche so loathed the thought of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep away from religion in this response.

To my mind we are incredibly arrogant creatures in so far as we feel that the universe has to accord with our sense of decorum; we are so marvellous that there must be a reason for our being here, for example. Or, the universe must be, in principle, comprehensble to us. It must only do things that we consider resonable. Etc etc etc.

My own belief is that the universe is constrained by none of these ideas of ours. It can (and does) do what it likes. The further we stray from local circumstances (for example, into the depths of space or into the depths of the atom) the more unreasonable it appears. Well, so be it. Thinkers of both religious and scientific persuasions often feel unhappy with this. Very often language itself (which is by its nature 'human') imposes an anthropocentric slant on our thinking. To keep away from religion I'll take an example from Einstein...

He once said that common sense was the name given to that set of prejudices accumulated by age eighteen. I like that! But then he forgot this, it seems, in feeling that the probablistic nature of quantum theory could not form the basis of physics. He wanted deterministic laws, certain outcomes. Perhaps this desire arose from prejudices accumulated by age eighteen??

I don't even find it all that sad that the universe will end in heat death because one more bit of anthropocentricity has recently taken a knock on the head; the 'universe,' for many cosmologists, is by no means all that there is. It is just a little bubble of some kind in a wider multiverse. That seems reasonable to me. (Whoops!!!)

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olly i do agree with the anthropocentric view point we take about the universe but I guess that just our intrinsic prejudices, hence why we name planets, moons, topographic features after people, gods etc of the past! This view point has even gone so far as to have created the anthropic cosmological principle which the states the universe couldnt be any other way or we would not be here to ask questions about it! Of course this principle assumes it's presumptions and so is of limited usefulness however I'm always slightly reluctant to agree with multiverse theory as is purely theoretical and being a scientist myself think of things needing to be empirically tested. The slit experiment does show circumstantial evidence (according to David deutsch) for alternative universes though I personally see them as one of the perculiarities that come out of quantum theory!

It's all very interesting and whatever peoples thoughts on how we can think about and comprehend these things i still find it amazing that homo sapien sapiens can do so

Thanks

Adam

Edited by adam88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One theory is that if the universe keeps expanding it will evetually meet another universe. If this other universe consists mainly of anti matter then the collision will cause an absolutey immense situation, maybe it would be the next big bang that will seed a new universe and carry on the eternal recycling that happens everywhere. It doesn't necessarilly need to be anti matter, that suggestion just makes it a bit easier to understand as there is an infinite number of ways the spark will spark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One theory is that if the universe keeps expanding it will evetually meet another universe. If this other universe consists mainly of anti matter then the collision will cause an absolutey immense situation, maybe it would be the next big bang that will seed a new universe and carry on the eternal recycling that happens everywhere. It doesn't necessarilly need to be anti matter, that suggestion just makes it a bit easier to understand as there is an infinite number of ways the spark will spark.

...but this seems to suppose that the universe is expanding into something, which is not at all what the BB says.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.