A Snapshot of the Universe 3 Trillion Years From Now

ultracool wrote with a link to a Science Daily article that requires that you think long term. Really long term. Case Western Reserve University physicists are theorizing that trillions of years from now the universe will become 'static'. Essentially, the information that we use to gauge our Galaxy's position in the universe will have moved beyond the 'visible horizon. "What remains will be 'an island universe' made from the Milky Way and its nearby galactic Local Group neighbors in an overwhelmingly dark void ... The researchers followed up that discussion with one tracking early elements like helium and deuterium produced in the Big Bang. They predict systems that allow us to detect primordial deuterium will be dispersed throughout the universe to become undetectable, while helium in concentrations of approximately 25 percent at the Big Bang will become indiscernible as stars will produce far more helium in the course of their lives to cloud the origins of the early universe."

Comments

What about now?

[Derling Whirvish]

Doesn't this mean that the universe may be much older than we can currently detect in that there may be a lot more of it out there beyond our current event horizon which drops off at about 13.7 billion years? Maybe it is 20 or 30 billion years old but we can only detect it to the 13.7 billion year line.

Re:We Are Gods

[red314159]

Why can't I turn this around and say, "Some of us still obsess with thinking we know the meaning of life . . . Can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Sciences?" It's a different approach to trying to understand the universe. You're free to think that scientists are arrogant, but they're no less arrogant than you are in your comment.

Re:Why are we worrying about trillion years?

[Jugalator]

I'm not sure what happens on planets and the deep layers of Earth matter for the expansion of the universe, or to generalize, what geology have to do with cosmology, so I'm not sure what a better understanding of those things would help the understanding of this. It would be far less than the scale of how a golf ball affect the rotation of Earth. And as for this research, they're simply extrapolating from what's been seen to happen in the past. And when you think about it, there's not many end stations for the universe. It's either a big crunch, static universe, or a big rip. If there's enough black matter, perhaps we have yet to see the force of the big bang being overtaken by the gravity of all the mass though.

Re:uhh

[zymano]

I agree.

Another theory is that the particles will decay.

What happens then?

Something cool. New universe?

Re:big crunch?

[glitch23]

Isn't the universe supposed to collapse sooner than that? If scientists are currently saying that the universe is 10-20 billion years old, why the hell would anyone assume the "Big Crunch" won't happen by then?

I'd be much more interesting if someone had a theory about what the universe looked like before the Big Bang, assuming that isn't a bunch of bullshit too.

Right now, Hindu creation mythology is looking less silly than theoretical astrophysics. I'll be waiting for Kalki to come destroy the universe and start a new cycle before I'll believe any speculation about what will happen in the way, way future, 150X as long away as the speculated age of our universe. That's like making predictions about the 3000th birthday of a 20 year old person.

The universe only gets created once; there will be no big crunch. Only 1 Creation is identified in the Holy Bible (although there are 2 variations). Your curiousity about wanting to see the universe before the Big Bang doesn't make sense from the point of view that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Nothing. I view science (all forms) as constantly finding signs of Creation and God rather than evolution and chance. The only difference is that the people who have faith view the evidence differently compared to those who don't have faith. Those who have faith welcome the scientists to prove their faith even if the scientists don't see it the same way. There are a few things that scientists come up with that don't make sense or are just completely false but the majority of their theories and discoveries actually back up the fact that God created everything in existence. Studying chemistry, physics, etc. allows us to see what he designed.

I believe there are a minority of scientists who do believe in God, a minority of them are probably too scared to admit it to their co-workers for fear of being ostracized (just like meteorologists (with impeccable credentials) who have death threats made against them for opposing global warming). Hawking and Einstein have made references to God and there is the Higgs particle that has been nicknamed the "God particle". For those who don't know what the Higgs particle is, it is the object that particle physicists believe gives mass to objects. It is predicted to exist based on the Standard Model.

All of this tells me that respect for the Creator and His Creation is not totally dead. Those who disagree with that viewpoint (or anything I said above) are free to do so however that shouldn't include berating and belittling people like me who hold those views just because it differs from others', nor should it include silencing people like me because my views differ. From my point of view, their views are the ones outside the norm of mine but I don't make attempts to silence them. Our views should not impede on one another's freedom despite what the faithless think.