The end of the Universe theories

[leonheart]

No matter what way we look at it, the Universe will eventually end.

Two of the main theories i know of are the Big Crunch or constant expansion.

The big crunch is fairly unlikely though, there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe to cause it to start contracting on itself, a recent theory of dark energy may be the answer to why the universe appears to be expanding at increasing rates rather than just a constant rate, this would mean the universe could in theory continue to expand for ever with out the fear of the big crunch.

But is the constant expansion a good thing? No. It isn't in fact its worse than the big crunch, Stars are made of hydrogen and helium (which was all formed at the point of the big bang) the universe will continue to expand untill its used up all the hydrogen and helium, then the stars will start to flicker out and die, galaxies will dissapear and eventually all that will be left are black holes and even they only live for a period of time.. all that will be left after the black holes are gone is just empty space.. nothing will ever be there again.. at least with the big crunch there is hope of a new beggining of every thing..

i would write more but i have to go.. let me know what you think on those theories.

[Smooth]

I watched a Sky At Night episode where the speakers were talking about this very problem, and of a new scenario based on new evidence from data gleaned recently. I think I heard it correctly, but let me know if i'm wrong!

It may be that both theories mentioned are totally incorrect and we have to go back to the drawing board once the new data is scrutinised.

They were saying that the new data suggests that what we thought was our observable universe of some 20+ billion light years, may in fact be just a tiny speck in the universe as a whole. This possibility was realised because the new data showed the universe to be more flat than previous data could show as the technology and the amount of data had never been possible before.

They said they are going to need time to go over the data to verify this, but also said that if correct, it will put all of the theory back a long way, and leave the scientists with a lot of work to do to try to understand the universe in this new way. Of course, they said this was just the kind of challenge that the scientific community revels in, so expect some new, interesting theories soon!

[Ben Ritchie]

There's an old, but very good, paper by Freeman Dyson called 'Time without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe'

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt

[EA2007]

Open, closed, static.......who knows:

If the universe were female then it would of course be open, all those open mouths yakking away constantly about shopping, cooking, girly films etc etc.

If the universe were the stage doors to jonathan ross's show then of course it would be closed.

But if the universe was static then we'd all be getting electrocuted at random times

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

This possibility was realised because the new data showed the universe to be more flat than previous data could show as the technology and the amount of data had never been possible before.

They said they are going to need time to go over the data to verify this, but also said that if correct, it will put all of the theory back a long way, and leave the scientists with a lot of work to do to try to understand the universe in this new way. Of course, they said this was just the kind of challenge that the scientific community revels in, so expect some new, interesting theories soon!

Some even say that the earth is flat, and get laughed at, but a flat universe? What will they think of next?

Kaptain Klevtsov (who rather doubts it will matter to him which way it goes)

[Rosanella]

Open, closed, static.......who knows:

If the universe were female then it would of course be open, all those open mouths yakking away constantly about shopping, cooking, girly films etc etc.

A much happier universe than the grumpier version

A flat Universe? Nah! How can that be? Cosmologists need to work on that theory a bit more, a lot more, though I don't think that we'll ever get to an answer, close to an answer maybe but never quite a complete answer.

[EA2007]

By flat they mean flatter, we observe the universe in 3D, well 4D if we include time, the limits of our observation lie partly with the lay of the universe, i.e. it curves, hence objects beyond the horizon (like when standing on a beach looking out to sea) cannot be seen.

We are now being told that because we can see more distant objects the universe must be a lot larger therefore less curved in our local vacinity (flatter) and we can see a greater distance, kinda makes sense really! Gotta love science.

[narrowbandpaul]

our best guess (as far as I know) suggest a flat universe (k=0)

when most folk think flat, they think of a 2D plane. But planes can be n dimensional (n>=2)...so its our mind that tricks us in to thinking that planes only exist in 2d...the evidence suggests that the universe is flat.

With regards to the expansion, unfortunately the glory of a big crunch will never be realised. Hubble observations of distant Type1a Supernova, suggest that the universe is accelerating its expansion. This fore is thought to come from dark energy.

Speaking of horizons ed, i believe the de Sitter horizon is the distance at which the expansion speed equals the speed of light (not forbidden by SR).

Hubbles constant H0 is the rate of change of distance with time; dr/dt. We know that (i think) hubbles constant was different in the early universe. So if H was larger in the early universe then that part of the universe expands faster, than our local part. This ties in with the observation, but the mechanism behind why hubbles constant was larger back then need explained. A force is required for an acceleration

Just a thought

paul

[EA2007]

Very good Pauline.

Yeh, De Sitter and Einstein both pondered over expansion, De Sitter is less well known but his theories equally as good. There are said to be pockets of the universe expanding faster than others, spikes if you like, accelerating quicker than the rest, now does that come down to the mass of our universe being lower in that area, or does it come down to the nature of what we are expanding into attracting it, given that supposidly there is nothing there!?

I guess we shall be asking this question for a good few years yet.

Edna.

[Rosanella]

Pauline and Edna now it's all clear

[EA2007]

Of course, Pauline's my Scottish counterpart, he.....I mean 'she' is very good at astronomy, she has a friend called Ally who I have yet to meet! (short for Allison hee hee). Bit like brenda and maureen off the bounty adverts!

[narrowbandpaul]

were thinner and far more beautiful than those ladies...

[EA2007]

were thinner and far more beautiful than those ladies...

...........I bet lol

Are there any tranvestite astronomers do we know? (sorry, I don't know why I am asking this ha ha oh well)

[narrowbandpaul]

if we plant a telescope on eddie izzard, would that count...hes a legend

CAKE! or death?

[EA2007]

.........or Paul O'Grady

[George]

No matter what way we look at it, the Universe will eventually end.

And I will put every penny I have on it being cloudy and we miss it :laughing2: :laughing2: :laughing2: