The Death of A Universe

ninthwave writes "The Guardian is running an article on research into the visible effects of entropy in the Universe. Alan Heavens of The University of Edinburgh did the research also posted at The Royal Astronomical Society with this article" I dunno - expansion, heat death - it all reminds me of a teacher who said "I'm not a premillenialist, postmillenialist - I'm a pan-millenialist, as in it's all going to pan out in the end." Update: 08/18 16:36 GMT by S : Headline fixed.

Comments

Gravity and Heat

[TuataraShoes]

The reality is that we know so little about the universe that we can't even account for 90% of the gravity in our own galaxy. We call it dark matter because we can't see it anywhere but we need it to balance the visible mass against the visible size and rotation of the Milky Way.
We have only just begun to think about the shape of the universe. As in... What is at the edge, and what is beyond that? Or does it curl around in a sort of 11 dimentional sphery type thing. Figuring out the total heat or mass in the universe is still way beyond us.
We don't yet have a theory of gravity that works for the galaxy, or fits with electromagnetic and nuclear forces.

Universe ripped apart

[no reason to be here]

I read somewhere recently (forgive me, I remember not where) of a new-ish theory that if the rate of expansion continues to increase that the universe will be ripped apart. that is to say, the rate of expansion would be so great that not only gravity would fail, but even strong and weak forces. All matter would be torn to shreds as it accelerated ever faster and faster.

IANAP, so anyone who is one, or studying to become one care to comment?

Re:Universe ripped apart

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, consider if the universe is actually a closed form like say a taurus, that perhaps the infinate rate of expansion results in an infinate rate of compression- and thus the next big bang.

Interesting, but I don't put much faith into it.

[I'm a racist.]

The fact is, we are rather unsure of what will happen as the universe ends.

When I was an undergraduate, my astrophysics and cosmology courses went into a number of models. The problem isn't that any of these models are inherently wrong. The real problem is that we don't have the observational evidence to choose and properly parameterize any particular model. Hasn't anyone else noticed the constant influx of observations that favor one model or another? I don't think these observations are necessarily wrong either, they are just pushing our techniques to their limits.

Not long ago, a new and very interesting model was published. It fits well with observations. Anyone with a passing interest in cosmology and/or string theory should read that paper, it's very short and easily digestable. This idea is, of course, very interesting. Is it actually the way the universe works? Hmmm, I don't know. We just don't have the observational capability to say with a high degree of certainty how the universe will evolve on a long timescale.

Sure, I like hearing about the latest measurements and calculations. But, I take it all with a megaparsec-scale cloud of sodium. It's interesting, but not too meaningful, most of the time.

This debate is definitely going to go on for some years to come. In fact, it may well not have a good answer for 5-15 gigayears.

The Last Question

[sICE]

Interrestingly enough, Isaac Asimov already told us just that.

My take on this

[wiggys]

Maybe the last "days" of the universe will consist of groups of highly advanced intelligent beings scavenging for matter in a dying universe to sustain them. They will still be looking for a way to create another universe, and therefore new life. If they succeed, they will no doubt create a universe with a slightly different set of parameters so that life evolves much earlier than it did in the present universe.

Perhaps they will find a way to teleport into the new universe they create, each life form becoming truly a God.

Re:"An Universe"?

[grug0]

Although it pains me to say it, I believe "it's" has now become an acceptable way to write the possesive of "it," for example, given that nearly everyone does it.

So what benefits are there for having one rule for the 'it' pronoun and another for every other noun? I've been corrected many times on this issue, and I'm genuinely curious as to the origin of this rule and why it's supposed to make more sense.

Great science fiction short story

[vudufixit]

Dealing with this topic - "The Last Question" by Issac Asimov. Awesome ending.

Earth not to be engulfed!

[Luyseyal]

The sun will swell to become a red giant until it engulfs Earth.

Actually, it's been recently shown (1, 2) that Earth could survive Sol's expansion, though it would be really frickin' hot!

-l

Life is short:

[wideBlueSkies]

>>Galaxies shine with the combined light of all the stars in them. Most of the light from young stars is blue, coming from very hot massive stars. These blue stars live fast and die young, ending their lives in supernova explosions

So I guess that Jimmy Dean, John Belushi, Keith Moon and Bon Scott were blue stars eh?

wbs.

Re:Am grammar died

[ComputerSlicer23]

Hmmm, there exists more then one cat. However, people refer to "a cat", all the time. If someone was referring to "the universe", saying there is only a single universe, you might have a point. I have heard people refer to "the cat", and when there is only a single obvious meaning nobody is confused. Just like the implied you in the sentence "Sit down".

The term Universe from it's root is inherently singluar. There can't be two, because by definition, the two as a whole would then be considered the "Universe", and we'd lack the appropriate term for the two parts. I completely understand that science has subverted this, and decided to use the term multiverse to be unambigious.

About the only place I can even contemplate having more then one Universe, is in mathmatics where you have Universal Sets. There, you make the noun "set" plural.

First the "atom" (the root word means indivisible, guess the guys on the Manhatten project weren't paying attention), now the "universe" (its root means roughly all inclusive of everything). Can't we wait until we are sure of the properties before we name things. That's why multiverse, and sub-atomic particles are oxymorons.

Kirby

Re:Jackass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no it's not even theoretically correct grammar. The "Y" sound in "yoo-nih-vurs" means that "a" should be used, not "an." An ungent. A unicorn. An uprising. A unicycle. See the difference?

(... and if I had the mod points, you'd get a -1, Redundant, jackass. Arrogant, inaccurate, and yet still repeating an earlier comment.)

The lights will get brighter before they dim

[praedor]

I believe that the projected time when Andromeda galaxy collides with our Milky Way (they ARE headed for collision) is around 100 million years hence (correction anyone?). This collision will induce a profusion of star formations and may end up ejecting our star/solar system out of the galaxy entirely. Or, we may end up in the Andromeda galaxy as it moves on its merry way, or...

In any case, the lights are scheduled to burst anew in a plethora of star formation in the nearish future. Of course, several BILLION years later, the trend remains as mentioned.

"Time Without End"

[xihr]

For a good foray into the future history of an open universe, see Freeman Dyson's classic, "Time Without End: Physics and Biology In an Open Universe".

It's worth pointing out that up until just recently, pretty much everyone was sure that the universe would be closed (although it appears pretty flat). The recent supernova measurements indicate a universe that's expanding faster and faster, so we now have very strong reason to believe the universe is in fact open, but when people like Dyson were speculating about the possible future of an open universe, it was considered highly speculative and rather academic (since everyone was sure that we didn't live in one).