Fate of Universe revealed by galactic lens

[booNyzarC]

Imagine ants on the surface of a balloon. Ants represent the galaxies whilst the balloon represents space. Now start inflating the balloon. This represents the expansion of space. On average the ants are getting further away from each other.

The ants are still free to move about though. Sometimes they will come into contact with one another.

Galaxies also have independent motion within the expanding space, so even though, on average, they are moving away from each other, sometimes they will collide.

I hope that makes sense.

I think the balloon analogy is excellent for demonstrating the overall expansion, but isn't ideal for galaxy collisions. The way I look at this is more from an imagery of dumping a bag of marbles onto the floor. Initially, the marbles will collide and bounce off of each other, and into each other, and so on and so forth... until eventually they all collect into huddled masses or against the wall.

Now, expand on that with the idea of dark energy, and the limitlessness of space itself with no walls to stop them and continuous momentum propelling them through the continuum... and instead of collecting into huddled masses or against the wall, they bounce until there is nothing around to bounce against...

Still a pretty grim eventuality if you ask me. And I hope that science discovers a happier ending down the road...

But that's how I interpret the answer to the question you were originally answering.

[fandango]

I have being cracking up with my thoughts on this over time, has anyone ever come up with a similar theory to this?

Please note: I have absoluteley no evidence to support these thoughts, its just my possible theory, I would be very interested in any feed back positive and negative and am glad to get it out of my head TBH.

The theory:

The universe is made up of predominantly dark energy that could have a cycle of being ripped apart as it continually expands, stretches and fills in the rips and tears.

There was no Big Bang as such, instead Big Rips occur in the 'fabric' of dark energy, the energy released from these rips creates bubbles of matter which are then eventually filled in with dark energy which pushes the bubbles of matter (galaxies, clouds etc) away from each other in every direction from each point, as these rips are being filled in this puts tension on the dark energy until it rips again somewhere else and a new Big Rip occurs, and so on and so on.

So my theory is that these Big Rips have always occured and will always keep occuring creating matter, universes and galaxies etc, its just a case of when the tension will get to ripping point again and that the matter (galaxies etc) created by the past ripping points have probably been pushed out of view of the visible universe by now.

Im not sure if I have made it clear what i mean and apologise if its complete twaddle, its probably FULL of flaws and impossibilities, but if someone could put me out of my misery and tell me i have it all wrong or hey im heading in the right direction possibly then cool.

P.S. im not mad honest.

[booNyzarC]

I have being cracking up with my thoughts on this over time, has anyone ever come up with a similar theory to this?

Please note: I have absoluteley no evidence to support these thoughts, its just my possible theory, I would be very interested in any feed back positive and negative and am glad to get it out of my head TBH.

The theory:

The universe is made up of predominantly dark energy that could have a cycle of being ripped apart as it continually expands, stretches and fills in the rips and tears.

There was no Big Bang as such, instead Big Rips occur in the 'fabric' of dark energy, the energy released from these rips creates bubbles of matter which are then eventually filled in with dark energy which pushes the bubbles of matter (galaxies, clouds etc) away from each other in every direction from each point, as these rips are being filled in this puts tension on the dark energy until it rips again somewhere else and a new Big Rip occurs, and so on and so on.

So my theory is that these Big Rips have always occured and will always keep occuring creating matter, universes and galaxies etc, its just a case of when the tension will get to ripping point again and that the matter (galaxies etc) created by the past ripping points have probably been pushed out of view of the visible universe by now.

Im not sure if I have made it clear what i mean and apologise if its complete twaddle, its probably FULL of flaws and impossibilities, but if someone could put me out of my misery and tell me i have it all wrong or hey im heading in the right direction possibly then cool.

P.S. im not mad honest.

I really like your idea and believe it has merit. I wouldn't call it a theory yet, but the idea itself is as sensible as many other ideas that match with the known universe. I'd even dare to say that with my limited scientific knowledge on the whole thing, that it makes more sense than many other hypotheses that have floated around. You might actually be onto something! But then again, you might not...

It's certainly not something I would brush under the rug as preposterous though. I don't study this subject matter myself, and don't know if anyone has ever proposed such a thing before. But if not, you might want to pursue this as a possible actuality. The Fandango Theory has a pretty nice ring to it after all.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I think the balloon analogy is excellent for demonstrating the overall expansion, but isn't ideal for galaxy collisions.

I wasn't really trying to explain HOW the galaxies move, indeed my analogy was deliberately over simplified... as is yours. What I was trying to show was that there can be independent motion, and hence collisions, even within an expanding space/time.

The reality is that galaxy movement is far more complicated as there is a layer of complexity which neither of our analogies take into account. Galaxies do not, in fact, wonder around independently on the whole, but are parts of clusters. These are groups of galaxies which are gravitationally tied together. The galaxies are free to move around within the clusters and hence can collide. Clusters can collide with other clusters.

But it doesn't stop there. Galaxy clusters themselves are part of larger structures called superclusters. And superclusters are parts of even larger structures called filaments... these can stretch for more than a billion-light years.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Waspie_Dwarf

[GreyWeather]

I don't really understand why they don't take into account the creation of matter from energy.

I mean, going back to the singularity that became our universe today, it didn't contain all the matter that is here today. The first element thought to have come into being was Hydrogen, and later other electrons bonded with helium to produce Helium etcetc.

Even then, also, there were no stars but slowly the universe became full of them. So, even if the Universe continues to expand, new galaxies will form around black 'holes' or even merge into giant-galaxies.

[GreyWeather]

Drj312's response is correct, but even without those factors an unlimited expansion would not disprove gravity.

For simplicity we will disregard such exotic things as dark energy. Gravity is dependent on mass. The more mass in the universe the greater the overall amount of gravity. If there is enough mass (and therefore gravity) then the expansion of the universe will slow and eventually stop. The universe will then begin to contract again.

If there is insufficient mass then there will not be enough gravity to overcome the expansion. Despite the existence of gravity the universe will continue to expand forever.

Unless gravity isn't a force, but a by-product of space/mass. For reasoning that gravity is not uniform nor does it exist where there is no great collection of mass (more gravity inside a solar system than there is surrounding it.)

I say it's not uniform, as for example, out suns gravity is strongest inside of itself, and weakest towards the edge of our solar system. At the same time, on Earth gravity is strongest away from the equater and weakest at the equater.

Even Einstien and other major players in the field of Physics see gravity as an illusionary-force.

Perhaps if there was more mass in the Universe, Dark Energy may have been slowed down some what?

[StarMountainKid]

There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electrical and nuclear forces to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in a "Big Rip".

On the other hand, dark energy might dissipate with time, or even become attractive. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a "Big Crunch". Some scenarios, such as the cyclic model suggest this could be the case. While these ideas are not supported by observations, they are not ruled out. Measurements of acceleration are crucial to determining the ultimate fate of the universe in big bang theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Ten years ago we did not know about dark energy and its effect accelerating the expansion of the universe. Ten years from now, or 100 years from now it's possible we may understand the fate of the universe to be quite different than we do today.

Edited August 22, 2010 by StarMountainKid

[booNyzarC]

I wasn't really trying to explain HOW the galaxies move, indeed my analogy was deliberately over simplified... as is yours. What I was trying to show was that there can be independent motion, and hence collisions, even within an expanding space/time.

The reality is that galaxy movement is far more complicated as there is a layer of complexity which neither of our analogies take into account. Galaxies do not, in fact, wonder around independently on the whole, but are parts of clusters. These are groups of galaxies which are gravitationally tied together. The galaxies are free to move around within the clusters and hence can collide. Clusters can collide with other clusters.

But it doesn't stop there. Galaxy clusters themselves are part of larger structures called superclusters. And superclusters are parts of even larger structures called filaments... these can stretch for more than a billion-light years.

Sorry Waspie_Dwarf, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong by any means. And you're right, my analogy is definitely over simplified.

The difference between using ants on the surface of an expanding balloon and the marbles is that the ants can independently change direction, stop, and start up again, without an outside force impacting those "decisions". Marbles dumped out on the floor don't "decide" where to go, they simply interact with the other marbles, the floor, and the walls due to basic physics.

I was merely offering an alternate simplified way of explaining the same thing, but with an analogy slightly closer to the real deal than ants on a balloon. My apologies for failing to convey that intent last night (erm... this morning), but I was quite exhausted and just wanted to help out before I headed off to bed.

This UM place has kept me up very late the past few nights, simply because I can't stop looking around at all the cool and interesting (and sometimes frightening or comical) things it has to offer. It's a shame that my vacation ends tomorrow and I won't be able to look up from the grindstone quite as much. At any rate, cheers and good morning!

[fandango]

I really like your idea and believe it has merit. I wouldn't call it a theory yet, but the idea itself is as sensible as many other ideas that match with the known universe. I'd even dare to say that with my limited scientific knowledge on the whole thing, that it makes more sense than many other hypotheses that have floated around. You might actually be onto something! But then again, you might not...

It's certainly not something I would brush under the rug as preposterous though. I don't study this subject matter myself, and don't know if anyone has ever proposed such a thing before. But if not, you might want to pursue this as a possible actuality. The Fandango Theory has a pretty nice ring to it after all.

Thanks, its been on my mind for a while, I think im going to look into it further.

The Fandango Theory Hey I like the sound of that!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

So, even if the Universe continues to expand, new galaxies will form around black 'holes' or even merge into giant-galaxies.

No they won't. There is only a finite amount of matter in the universe. It is not constantly being replenished. As stars burn out and die they have used up their nuclear fuel... it can never be used again. Eventually there will be no more left for new stars.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases with time in a closed system. The universe is such a closed system. In effect this means that as the universe continues to expand it will become colder and colder, until it approaches absolute zero. As it approaches absolute zero no further chemical or nuclear reactions are possible. The universe will become dark and cold. This is known as the Heat death of the universe.

It is even possible that matter itself will decay into elementary particles (the Big Rip), leaving not so much as a cinder or a dead planet behind.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The Fandango Theory Hey I like the sound of that!

It isn't a theory until it's backed up by empirical data. At present it is at best the The Fandango Hypothesis, as a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for observed phenomena.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Ten years ago we did not know about dark energy and its effect accelerating the expansion of the universe. Ten years from now, or 100 years from now it's possible we may understand the fate of the universe to be quite different than we do today.

That is possible, however it will not change the fact that expansion of the universe has been measured more and more accurately. We now know that the expansion is accelerating, no new discoveries are likely to change that. We may understand better why it is happening. We may discover some phenomenon that means we can get rid of the need for dark energy from our explanations. We may have a better understanding of what the consequences of a universe which expands forever are... but the speed at which the universe is expanding is a measurable quantity, it not going to be changed by any new discoveries any more than better understanding plate tectonics is going to change the height of Everest.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Waspie_Dwarf
bad spelling.

[stevewinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMjtNRKepU&feature=related