The Ultimate Fate Of The Universe ?

[UM-Bot]

A new report from two proffessors in the USA claims to provide evidence that would suggest that the universe will indeed collapse in on itself in the future. The idea behind this is that the so called "Dark Energy" believed to be pushing the universe apart, will eventually lose its energy, resulting in an inevitable "Big Crunch".

Here's a link to an article with the story in its entirety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2346907.stm

[Kira]

:s6 Hmmm The Big Crunch huh?

Interesting story thanks SuRaMaN :s03

[dean-g]

how long have we got? is it worth planning anything?

(sorry i've been missing, i've had some issues to resolve)

[SpaceyKC]

You just can't trust that DARK ENERGY!

It's sooo mysterious!! :s01

[Homer]

Since it is one of my favorite candybars, the bigger the crunch the better. But don't worry everybody, you just have to look at my title and know that I'll protect you ;D

Big crunches are cool 8)

[SpaceyKC]

OUR HERO HAS RETURNED!! :s7

(we don't have to worry about those nasty N.E.O.s

anymore!)

[Homer]

To prevent boredom, I will keep some N.E.O.'s around just for the excitement, but nothing too devastating.

Hero's are cool 8)

[Electro]

Now, despite the source, two physics professors, this is the sort of thing that I find hard to beleive or even have one small drop of faith in.

If given the entire theory, the assumptions (mainly), the mathematical formula, the basis (subject) of the study then maybe some sort of faith in this theory could be sparked. Unfortunately I have too many questions to ask. Some of them go like this:

(1) Dark matter - This is supposedly the zero point energy, quantuum polystyrene or ether whose existence nobody has as yet irrovocably managed to prove by experimentation. Therefore we start from an uncertain basis.

(2) How do we know at the moment that this "dark energy" is actually responsible for pushing matter within the universe apart?

(3) If it is, then there must be a point at which this matter pushes the universe apart from? Where did the force oringinate and if we can calculate that the force is pushing things apart then surely we can pinpoint its origin?

(4) If so then where did the big bang occur? Surely there must have been a big bang in order to create the acceleration and momentum of the energy pushing the matter apart.

(5) Quantum physics describes an infinite density of zero level energy, as does the ether theory. At least on this they seem to agree. If its possible for the universe to collapse in on itself then surely the universe is finite. If the universe is finite then surely there is no such concept as infinity within the boundaries of the universe. Since dark matter, which equates to the quantum vacuum is bounded within the universe, then this would suggest that there is no infinite density of zero level energy. It would suggest that as the universe expands the zero level energy would become less dense, unless of course it is generated by the momentum of matter within the universe itself such that it maintains a uniform density at all points in space and time.

(6) Where the buggery does this theory come from? How can you create valid reference points with regards the motion of anything when calculating against the vastness of the universe when everything in the universe is in motion. Granted you can make reasonably accurate calculations about the velocity and diection of movement of planets, suns, solar systems etc.. as you may use a "relatively" static point in order to make the calculation. For example, if calculating the velocity of the earth's orbit round the sun the reference point would obviously be the sun as you are describing earth's movement with regards to it. However, if you are looking to describe the rate of expansion of the Universe, or even whether something like dark matter is going to reverse its polarity, then what do you use as a reference when calculating something so vast?

In some circumstances you can take a subset of a system and measure values within that system and scale those values to the larger system. However, for this to be accurate you must have an appreciation of the fact that the smaller system that you are taking values from is a fair representation of the larger system. This appreciation is gained by obsrvation.

Imagine an example. You are locked in a room. You are then asked to describe the size and scale of the building and asked to draw a picture of what the building looks like on the outside. How can you know? Can you extrapolate from the features within the room? Maybe you can if the building behaves in a uniform manner. In this way you may be able to draw the picture but you may be well of the mark with the size and scale. Another point is that things don't necessarily behave in the way that we would expect. If they did and this will be my last point....honest....what would be the point of this website forum?

Cheers, Electro.

......and he rambles............and rambles.....................and rambles.......................

[Homer]

Electro,

You stated: "Dark matter - This is supposedly the zero point energy, quantuum polystyrene or ether whose existence nobody has as yet irrovocably managed to prove by experimentation." For one thing, dark matter isn't supposedly the zero point energy; and dark matter can't yet be proven by experimentation, but by observation. The universe simply can't be held together by the amount of matter we can see, so dark matter is nothing more than matter that we can't see.

You stated: "How do we know at the moment that this "dark energy" is actually responsible for pushing matter within the universe apart?" We don't. It's called a theory, and although I'm not convinced of this theory either, I'm not going to tear it apart without evidence that provides counter points. Where's yours?

You stated: "If it is, then there must be a point at which this matter pushes the universe apart from? Where did the force oringinate and if we can calculate that the force is pushing things apart then surely we can pinpoint its origin?" In theory that would be the point of the Big Bang.

You stated: "Quantum physics describes an infinite density of zero level energy, as does the ether theory." I'm familiar with this terminology with regards to cosmic temperatures, but what do you mean by it?

You stated: "If the universe is finite then surely there is no such concept as infinity within the boundaries of the universe. Since dark matter, which equates to the quantum vacuum is bounded within the universe, then this would suggest that there is no infinite density of zero level energy." In the Big Crunch and the Big Chill theories, the universe is finite with regards to it's space. What do you mean by dark matter equating to the quantum vacuum? AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT WOULD SUGGEST "THERE IS NO INFINITE DENSITY OF ZERO LEVEL ENERGY"??

You stated: "It would suggest that as the universe expands the zero level energy would become less dense, unless of course it is generated by the momentum of matter within the universe itself such that it maintains a uniform density at all points in space and time." :s9

As far as your paragraph#6 and the ones after, that's rather simple. You should research Edwin Hubble. In 1924 Hubble measured the distance to the Andromeda nebula. By 1929 he concluded the speed with which a galaxy was moving toward or away from us was relatively easy to measure due to the Doppler shift of their light. Just as a sound of a racing car becomes lower as it speeds away from us, so the light from a galaxy becomes redder, with a sensitive spectrograph Hubble could determine the redshift of light from distant galaxies.

Electro, I don't believe in the Big Crunch theory, but I'm eager to learn about different theories and the evidence backing up the theories. I really do want to know more about "infinite density of zero level energy" you refered to about 600 times, and some references to that information.

[Electro]

Oh, hello again Homer. Not particulalry surprised to see you here again.

So, lets start from the beginning. I haven't got time at the moment to answer every single one of your points but I promise that I will.

First of all let me start by saying that a lot of what I wrote was written to actually stimulate this debate in the first place. There's no point in directing us to a new discovery or "theory" without actually looking at it and questioning its reasoning. Now lets have a look at some answers:

(1) you wrote,"For one thing, dark matter isn't supposedly the zero point energy;". Now lets have a look at the context of the comment in the article and apply a bit of common sense. "To explain this puzzle astronomers resurrected an idea originally from Einstein that there is in seemingly empty space a form of vacuum energy, sometimes referred to as dark energy, which is pushing everything apart. Unfortunately people use the term "dark energy" and "vacuum energy" interchangeably. I understand that dark matter exists but it does not exist on a uniform basis within the Universe. It is thought to arise as a result of burnt out stars (one theory). If there is no uniformity involved then how can this dark energy produce the uniform expansion effect through the Universe? This doesn't make sense unless there is some uniform force driving this which would suggest that the "dark energy" isn't necessarily the "dark matter" we all know about but some Universal plenum of alternative energy. That was my interpretation anyway.

(2) You answered my point of origin question with, In theory that would be the point of the Big Bang. This was what I was hinting at anyway within my original posting on a blatently obvious level. My point here was if there was a big bang and it was so big then where is the point of origin of the Universe. I know that in theory it was the point of the big bang but where was it?!?

(3) You posted, "It would suggest that as the universe expands the zero level energy would become less dense, unless of course it is generated by the momentum of matter within the universe itself such that it maintains a uniform density at all points in space and time". This is nothing more than stating that since all bodies have a charge and that since all bodies are in motion then maybe the motion and momentum of the Universe iteself contributes to the energy thought to be containted within the quantuum vacuum.

(4) Another thing you stated were the calculation that hubble made in determining the rate of acceleration of the andromed nebula away from us. I think that you have misinterpreted what I said in the paragraphs at the end of my previous posting. What hubble was measuring was the speed of acceleration of the andromea nebula with respect to our position on earth. In this was you are referencing a given point. Accepted. However, from earth how can we see a picture of the whole system? How do we know that in several billion years the same experiment will not show the nebula as being closer to us as it orbits back around to us during its cosmic dance? That was my point. We don't know and we can't know unless we have a view from outside the system. (Its the same as me saying that really the universe is carried within a sack carried by an old man with his cane and dog. You can't prove me wrong because by definition the Universe in infinite so how will you ever find yourself outside the sack in order to prove me wrong?).

With regards to the references to zero-point energy etc.. I will post some links in my next posting or start up a new topic based around it.

Many Regards,

Electro.

[Homer]

Electro,

You stated: "This doesn't make sense unless there is some uniform force driving this which would suggest that the "dark energy" isn't necessarily the "dark matter" we all know about but some Universal plenum of alternative energy." You are aware that dark energy and dark matter are opposites, aren’t you? You have been using the two terms interchangeably with regards to zero point energy and vacuum energy. The energy you are refering to, and what the article was refering to, is dark energy and not dark matter.

You stated: "I know that in theory it was the point of the big bang but where was it?!?" What difference does it make? The only question that would answer is if there is uniformity, but I fail to see what that has to do with the fate of the universe.

On your point #3, I’m still trying to figure out how this fits with the topic. Is this a point that argues for or against one particular theory with regards to the fate of the universe?

In your point#4, we can see the whole system. We can’t see our whole galaxy from within it, but we can see other whole galaxies as well as clusters of galaxies. You stated: "How do we know that in several billion years the same experiment will not show the nebula as being closer to us as it orbits back around to us during its cosmic dance? That was my point" Electro, your point doesn’t make sense. For one thing you said “if you are looking to describe the rate of expansion of the Universe, or even whether something like dark matter is going to reverse its polarity, then what do you use as a reference when calculating something so vast?” Nothing was ever mentioned about dark matter changing polarity. The article stated that dark energy could change it’s polarity. Those are opposites you routinely use interchangeably. Another thing is, we can’t wait until we have billions of hubble telescopes strategically positioned throughout the universe before we come up with calculations. Using earth, or more specifically the hubble space telescope, as a reference point, we can accurately chart the distance and speed of other cosmic bodies relative to earth. That information may not tell us the speed and vector of galaxy 'A' relative to galaxy 'Z' 300 trillion light years away from earth in opposite directions relative to earth, but what difference does it make? This topic is about the Big Crunch/Big Chill or other theories as to the fate of the universe. The universe is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating. That’s fact. How is whether the expansion is uniform relevant?

[Electro]

I was actually saying that dark energy isn't the same as dark matter and that the terms were often misused interchangeably. I think I demonstrated that quite well although it appears you missed the point.

With regards to the expansion of the Universe I understand that it is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. My suggestion was merely that is it not possible that we could be mistaking acceleration, looking at the one example you give, as the an arc describeing an eliptical orbit? Can you prove that this is not a possibility?

Likewise I can neither prove nor disprove any theory on the galaxy and its fate and until the time comes when there is unmistakable proof then I will believe what I like based on the various theories available.

To be honest one theory may hold no more validity than another but it may be worth discussing if it gives someone an idea who may be able to run with it and work out an experiment to prove something positive. Science fiction has been known to fuel science fact.

[Homer]

Electro,

You stated: "I was actually saying that dark energy isn't the same as dark matter and that the terms were often misused interchangeably. I think I demonstrated that quite well although it appears you missed the point." I didn't miss the point, Electro. You stated that people mistake dark energy with vacuum energy, neither of which is dark matter. What I said is that you are using dark matter and dark energy interchangeably. Your statement "there must be a point at which this matter pushes the universe apart from?" proves my point.

You stated: "My suggestion was merely that is it not possible that we could be mistaking acceleration, looking at the one example you give, as the an arc describeing an eliptical orbit? Can you prove that this is not a possibility?"

Electro, I'm not a scientist. I don't prove or disprove science. But as I have asked many times in this thread, what does that have to do with the topic?

This discussion isn't going anywhere. You keep going off in various directions trying to complicate the discussion with terms that don't have anything to do with the topic. Although this will be my last post on this thread unless others post with more intersting ideas, I will await your detailed thoughts on infinite density of zero level energy, as well as some references.

[Electro]

Okay Homer. I will open up a new topic. I agree that I seem to have strayed a bit from the topic. Possibly in this instance I have confused myself. It wouldn't be the first time.

With regards to the zero point, or vacuum energy I will open up a new topic; probably when I'm not at work. (Another quick admission is that there is not infinite density but apparently fairly significant density of zero point energy. I will explain this in the new topic posting).

Yours, backing down significantly (for a change),

Electro.