the universe cant blow up......can it?

[NoToRiOuS1]

(read the highlighted part to get the cliffs)

Phantom energy may fuel universe-eating wormholePremium

The latest theory on how the universe will end involves everything being swallowed by a giant wormhole ? a scenario dubbed the 'Big Trip'

The latest theory on how the universe will end involves everything being swallowed by a giant wormhole ? a scenario dubbed the 'Big Trip'.

According to cosmologist Pedro Gonzalez-Diaz at the Institute of Mathematics and Fundamental Physics, CSIC, Madrid, the gradual inflow of so-called phantom energy into a wormhole could cause it to swell up so much so that it would eventually engulf the entire universe.

Phantom energy is a hypothetical explanation for dark energy; the puzzling stuff thought to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. The defining property of phantom energy is that its energy density ? the amount of energy per unit volume ? increases over time.

The energy density of all known matter, by contrast, decreases or remains constant over time. This has led some theorists to suggest that phantom energy will cause the universe to grow ever faster until it eventually ?blows up? ...

---------------

I didn't know there was anything that was preventing the universe from expanding("blowing up") besides gravity....but thats not really squeezing the universe from the outside to prevent it from blowing up...instead its just pulling things together.

if the universe kept on expanding to a point where lets say the gravity of one galaxy had very little to almost no affect on another....is that what they are trying to refer to when they talk about the universe "blowing up"?

my logical assumption on this topic is that the universe can't blow up because besides gravity, there is nothing preventing it from expanding.

i feel very lost on this topic for some strange reason. please help guys

 

[The Linuxator]

The universe is infinite and so is time (or at least that's how I look at it), therefor I think we need to look at how the universe started to see how it ends, what do I mean ? If the universe and time are infinite, then if the universe will destroy itself then that will be for the purpose of re-making itself again.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
The universe is infinite and so is time (or at least that's how I look at it), therefor I think we need to look at how the universe started to see how it ends, what do I mean ? If the universe and time are infinite, then if the universe will destroy itself then that will be for the purpose of re-making itself again.

There's no evidence to suggest that the universe is infinite. In fact, given the way that the universe is currently expanding it's almost certainly not infinte!

Also, until we can objectively define time there's no basis for suggesting that time is infinite.

With reference to the original question, it doesn't really make sense. The energy density of the universe is likely to be steadily decreasing since the universe is expanding and (as far as we know) the amount of energy is remaining constant. The theory as outlined there (a linky would be good to get a proper feel for what is being said!) might be mathematically plausible but I would guess that amassing evidence to support it is nearly impossible.

 

[IdaGno]

bring peanut butter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/1528481.stm

 

[Xyo II]

for the universe blowing up- most likely only in the hitchiker's guide

for the probable ends to the universe, there is:

1. The Big Crunch
2. The Big Chill
3. The Big Crack-Up

in order of preference
To read about these, just look them up in wikipedia, I am sure there are lengthy articles for them, you could google it too. If you are eschatologically inclined, there was a pretty good summary here I believe.

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
The universe is infinite and so is time (or at least that's how I look at it), therefor I think we need to look at how the universe started to see how it ends, what do I mean ? If the universe and time are infinite, then if the universe will destroy itself then that will be for the purpose of re-making itself again.

There's no evidence to suggest that the universe is infinite. In fact, given the way that the universe is currently expanding it's almost certainly not infinte!

Also, until we can objectively define time there's no basis for suggesting that time is infinite.

With reference to the original question, it doesn't really make sense. The energy density of the universe is likely to be steadily decreasing since the universe is expanding and (as far as we know) the amount of energy is remaining constant. The theory as outlined there (a linky would be good to get a proper feel for what is being said!) might be mathematically plausible but I would guess that amassing evidence to support it is nearly impossible.

but if they ''claim'' the following:

The defining property of phantom energy is that its energy density ? the amount of energy per unit volume ? increases over time.

then how does that not make the idea of an exploding a plausable one?

Originally posted by: IdaGno
bring peanut butter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/1528481.stm

lmao

thx guys, i think im going to try and do some more research on my own before i bring this stuff to you guys.

thx for the link idagno

 

[the splat in the hat]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
The universe is infinite and so is time (or at least that's how I look at it), therefor I think we need to look at how the universe started to see how it ends, what do I mean ? If the universe and time are infinite, then if the universe will destroy itself then that will be for the purpose of re-making itself again.

There's no evidence to suggest that the universe is infinite. In fact, given the way that the universe is currently expanding it's almost certainly not infinte!

Also, until we can objectively define time there's no basis for suggesting that time is infinite.

With reference to the original question, it doesn't really make sense. The energy density of the universe is likely to be steadily decreasing since the universe is expanding and (as far as we know) the amount of energy is remaining constant. The theory as outlined there (a linky would be good to get a proper feel for what is being said!) might be mathematically plausible but I would guess that amassing evidence to support it is nearly impossible.

l agree its known that the universe has a size to it , how big we just dont know but its a sphere , so its not infinate , we created time so to speak in the sence of it being just a measurement and measured it, or did we ?
Time maybe fundamental theres so much debate on time its just not funny, some say ''you cant have time without humans to invent it'' '' or measure it''.
Some say its just a system we use to measure what we discovered, some say its a fundamental on its own and was always around but needed intelligent life to recognise it, who knows the right answer maybe only time will tell.....

 

[TSS]

according to superstring theory, or atleast the m-theory, the universe exists on a huge sheet of.. well dont know exactly what its made off, in any case, its called a brane. this thing is *huge*, but its not alone... long story short they belive that the beginning of the universe was 2 of these branes colliding. the end would be when they collide again.. one massive explosion i'd say. so yes it can blow up.

interesting show on string theory: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html (3 hours long tho, i watched it, amazing effects and such)

 

[Soccerman06]

Originally posted by: TSS
according to superstring theory, or atleast the m-theory, the universe exists on a huge sheet of.. well dont know exactly what its made off, in any case, its called a brane. this thing is *huge*, but its not alone... long story short they belive that the beginning of the universe was 2 of these branes colliding. the end would be when they collide again.. one massive explosion i'd say. so yes it can blow up.

interesting show on string theory: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html (3 hours long tho, i watched it, amazing effects and such)

I thought the universe started from the big bang. The big bang consisted of matter and anti-matter coliding, destroying 95% of all matter, and then over eons, gravity took charge and made galexies and stars and whatnot.

 

[DrPizza]

I think what TSS is referring to is an explanation of the "why" was there a big bang.
Its proof would be bad news for some religious people.
There are some who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. The earth was created, as is, a couple thousand years ago, complete with dinosaur fossils buried underground.

For those who realize there's more than enough evidence to prove the literal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect - many have come to the belief that God created the big bang, putting all of history into motion. This could prove them wrong.

However, they can always fall back on God created the branes.

And then, when that's solved...

If you really think about it, if there *is* a God, and He did write the Bible, he'd have to be thinking, "there's no way these people are going to understand that all of existence is because I caused two branes to collide. If I explain strings to these people wandering in the desert, they won't understand. I'll just tell them I made everything the way it is. I don't want to confuse them."

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: DrPizzaIf you really think about it, if there *is* a God, and He did write the Bible, he'd have to be thinking, "there's no way these people are going to understand that all of existence is because I caused two branes to collide. If I explain strings to these people wandering in the desert, they won't understand. I'll just tell them I made everything the way it is. I don't want to confuse them."

At the risk of going all theological on you, that's pretty much what Genesis says. If you study the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament the Biblical account of the creation is written in the style of, effectively, a children's story. It's certainly not written as a historical narrative - taking it literally would be like applying a literal interpretation to the poetic books of the OT (Psalms, Song of Solomon etc...).

Back in my Christian days, I never found a contradiction between science and religion - it was always a case of saying "Ah, that's how he did it..." rather than forcing a ridiculous and inappropriate interpretation to stand against common sense.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what TSS is referring to is an explanation of the "why" was there a big bang.
Its proof would be bad news for some religious people.
There are some who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. The earth was created, as is, a couple thousand years ago, complete with dinosaur fossils buried underground.

For those who realize there's more than enough evidence to prove the literal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect - many have come to the belief that God created the big bang, putting all of history into motion. This could prove them wrong.

However, they can always fall back on God created the branes.

And then, when that's solved...

If you really think about it, if there *is* a God, and He did write the Bible, he'd have to be thinking, "there's no way these people are going to understand that all of existence is because I caused two branes to collide. If I explain strings to these people wandering in the desert, they won't understand. I'll just tell them I made everything the way it is. I don't want to confuse them."

If there really is/was a god:

1) God being omniscient cannot fail, period, the fact that unbelievers exist against any religion or god is DISPROOF of that god, i.e. the quality of omniscience and omnipotence is CONTRARY to failure, any god that fails in his goals or tasks is by definition a non-god.

2) Any real god who has infinite power, resources and energy would not need to make a decaying universe, imperfect universe of limited resources. He would be able to supply the energy for a steady state perfect environment (i.e. no earthquakes, hurricanes, natural disasters, solar winds, stars exploding, meteors, etc).

3) People would be indestructable and unable to endure pain, etc, as to make violence and oppression pointless.

4) No real god would be so half-assed as to dick around for billions of years while a feral multicellular organism evolves into man through means of death and bloodshed. What kind of god is that anyway? Only someone psychotic would do that.

5) No real god would wait for or so billion years, then decide some oh 4000-5000 years ago to take 1000+ years to put a jewish bible together while the rest of humanity for millions of years prior had died, wheres' the compassion for people who never knew the jewish/other tribal sectarian god there?

6) The real reason people believe in god is because the were born too dumb to escape their own death and extend their own life, they are powerless computationally powerless to solve the problem of their own death, so as marx said 'religion is the opium of the people' it's difficult to accept being born in a time in the universe and human history that is barbaric, superstitions, psychotic and capitalistic because they have not yet secured the technology and philosophy to live together in peace and not oppress one anothe economically through barbaric economic idealogies because they are too stupid to develop technologies that would make everyones lives better for everyone and pu and end to scarcity, ignorance, superstition and stupidity.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what TSS is referring to is an explanation of the "why" was there a big bang.
Its proof would be bad news for some religious people.
There are some who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. The earth was created, as is, a couple thousand years ago, complete with dinosaur fossils buried underground.

For those who realize there's more than enough evidence to prove the literal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect - many have come to the belief that God created the big bang, putting all of history into motion. This could prove them wrong.

However, they can always fall back on God created the branes.

And then, when that's solved...

If you really think about it, if there *is* a God, and He did write the Bible, he'd have to be thinking, "there's no way these people are going to understand that all of existence is because I caused two branes to collide. If I explain strings to these people wandering in the desert, they won't understand. I'll just tell them I made everything the way it is. I don't want to confuse them."

If there really is/was a god:

1) God being omniscient cannot fail, period, the fact that unbelievers exist against any religion or god is DISPROOF of that god, i.e. the quality of omniscience and omnipotence is CONTRARY to failure, any god that fails in his goals or tasks is by definition a non-god.

2) Any real god who has infinite power, resources and energy would not need to make a decaying universe, imperfect universe of limited resources. He would be able to supply the energy for a steady state perfect environment (i.e. no earthquakes, hurricanes, natural disasters, solar winds, stars exploding, meteors, etc).

3) People would be indestructable and unable to endure pain, etc, as to make violence and oppression pointless.

4) No real god would be so half-assed as to dick around for billions of years while a feral multicellular organism evolves into man through means of death and bloodshed. What kind of god is that anyway? Only someone psychotic would do that.

5) No real god would wait for or so billion years, then decide some oh 4000-5000 years ago to take 1000+ years to put a jewish bible together while the rest of humanity for millions of years prior had died, wheres' the compassion for people who never knew the jewish/other tribal sectarian god there?

6) The real reason people believe in god is because the were born too dumb to escape their own death and extend their own life, they are powerless computationally powerless to solve the problem of their own death, so as marx said 'religion is the opium of the people' it's difficult to accept being born in a time in the universe and human history that is barbaric, superstitions, psychotic and capitalistic because they have not yet secured the technology and philosophy to live together in peace and not oppress one anothe economically through barbaric economic idealogies because they are too stupid to develop technologies that would make everyones lives better for everyone and pu and end to scarcity, ignorance, superstition and stupidity.

assuming that this theoretical god is as christianity views the role/power of God

for example, God could decide that we need to figure out/decide for ourselves how to live as we should to benefit all