Everything dies.

Not just me and you, but our planet..gone. Our solar system and galaxy, The Milky Way...gone.

Then, the universe itself keeps on expanding at an ever-increasing rate while the components of which it's made break down into more and more basic components. Interactions and reactions happen less and less frequently, and then hardly at all and then never.

And the universe, then, will also be gone.

Did I say gone?

Or did it ever exist?

Views: 600

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

..and when it is all gone and there is "nothing".....Bang! and off we go again? The Universe created us but does not know we exist. We only know the Universe exists because we exist at a time when we can observe its light. We know more about it than it knows about itself. Without us it won't matter if it exists or not. When it returns to nothing it will be the same as us before we were born and after we have died.

The Universe created us but does not know we exist. We only know the Universe exists because we exist at a time when we can observe its light. We know more about it than it knows about itself. 

You sure about that?... ;-)

I saw that, too, Belle. Reg, you're separating yourself from "the universe." As Carl Sagan once said, "The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

I am well aware of the words of Carl Sagan :-) Yes, we are made of stardust and would not exist without their demise. Our understanding of the Universe may make us the conscious awareness of itself, assuming no other “similar” life exists outside of our little Pale Blue Dot.

If we did not exist then how could the universe know of itself? If we did not evolve for (say) a five billion more years into the future then there would be no stars or planets in the night sky. We would look up into complete darkness as everything would have expanded away from everything else. (Assuming the Earth still orbited our Sun for the sake of this scenario). I mean the only way we know we are part of a “bigger” scheme is that we have evolved to understand the nature of light and the significance
 of the colors of it wavelengths. That is how we have come to know what we know about it.

As the Universe expands stars and planets move further away from each other - or more correctly the space between increases and they move apart. As this process continues Gravity will have less and less of an effect  - or again, it would be more correct to say that there will be less warping of Spacetime and the effects of relativity with decrease. Eventually everything will travel in a straight line and not orbit anything else. As entropy inevitably increases all structures will crumble.

Spacetime will no longer exist. But what becomes of the remaining matter and photon(M and C where M also = E)? Maybe they will interact somewhere in the remaining nothingness….and Bang!!!

Apparently, the universe has practicing this cycle since time immemorial. It's been going on forever. A physicist once mentioned the Big Bang to the Dalai Lama, and the Dalai Lama in his usual day gave a booming laugh, and he said, "Bang! Bang! Bang!" The Big Bang is not just one, it's been going all the time. Before time was. Hindus and Buddhists have always been espousing that ol' Perennial adage "nothing lasts" and that even the ego itself is an illusion. An imaginary hand attempting to grasp smoke.

If we do live in an oscillating universe, and the universe eventually exhausts itself and collapses into the singularity, Michio Kaku has a blue-print of a nanotechnology that could essentially survive "The Big Crunch," and blow itself outside a white hole where a new universe is born, and re-create ourselves on the other side.

Your cycle theory is not held by any reputable cosmologist I'm aware of.

The truth is not even cosmologists know how the universe will end or if it will end. The cyclic model one of many end-scenarios for the fate of the universe. I'm not sure if it's commonly accepted among cosmologists, but a common one spoken about in these forums is what's referred to as "The Big Freeze" or heat death. This view might be favored by cosmologists based on the second law of thermodynamics and an up-to-date cosmological assessment, but it's definitely not conclusive enough for any cosmologist to say it will definitely end that way. Alternative models, such as the Big Rip, the Big Bounce, false vacuum are still possible or they may not be. We may live in Cosmic uncertainty in that we have no clue as to the ultimate fate of the universe.

If the deep freeze were realised then the universe wouldn't disappear. There might be relatively stationary particles evenly spread out (though the particles would still have spin and there would still be an electromagnetic and gravity field between them no?). As long as once particle the universe exists (our universe) and our galaxy, world, humanity will still, due to relativity, exist in a slice of time. No?

I don't buy the notion that time is a static entity that we simply move through since it seems to imply that the future already exists as well as the past. Ultimately, of course, you wouldn't be able to go back in time from a state of abolute entropy because in such a state, there would be no you to do it.

Overall though, now that the presence of gravitational waves have been confirmed, the cosmic inflation version of pre-bang conditions is essentially a lock.

Confirming primordial gravitational waves, something the satellites are now working on as we speak/type, etc....will most likely nail this down with enough precision to confirm an ns in the range needed, etc.

So, each universe (assuming ours is not unique and the first one to do this with an infinite amount of time before hand, etc..) will expand and then produce the cosmic inflation scenario over and over again.

So, yes, you can't truly go back in time.  Even a photon is essentially not moving or aging from its own perspective, but, not going backwards either, etc.

As for existence, unless we leave THIS universe and habitate a new one...there will be nothing left of us, at least recognizable by us. 

Energy is about all that is going to be transferred.  Energy is a property of space time.  Just as we are composed of stardust, we will one day in turn be what forms new stars.

If you want to consider that as living forever, in a way, you are, if you consider yourself to also be whatever came before as living forever too, and so forth.

"Living" though, to me, means being alive...and, there is no part of being star dust then a person and then stardust and then a comet, etc...that is alive except when you are you, a living person.

Even if your recycled star dust becomes part of "people" on a new planet, circling a new sun, trillions of years from now...you are dead...but your energy has been transformed into something more useful than a buried box of formaldehyde soaked flesh.

The shorter term version is if you died and your remains are eaten by a vulture. you live on, as part of the vulture....and so forth, if you call that living....otherwise, being recycled is perhaps a more accurate term.



In essence I agree.  All matter in the Universe is just recycled energy.  If Einstein's  E=MC2 is correct.

Time doesn't exist.  Time is our term for how the basic forces and fields within the Universe effect each other and the effect these effects have on other effects.  The pace of these effects on effects varies depending on where you look.  So without Us measuring these effects on effects Time does not exist.  

I like that, Gregg. Succinct :)


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service