Is the Universe Losing Energy and Heading Towards an Unfortunate End?

[Algren]

I.e. Was there a universe before the bigbang? Well, i guess so.

Hence, there must be an infinite cycle of universe: -∞, collapsing, expanding, collapsing, +∞, etc.

Now, During the course of the universe's life, it must have released some energy into the void beyond. Hence, over time its losing energy. Using E=mc^2, we can say the universe is losing its mass.

Hence, after some universe lives, the universe might have so less energy, that it will fail to expand again. Hence, the existence finally shrunk to an unfortunate point.

Any arguments to this?

 

[phyzguy]

I.e. Was there a universe before the bigbang? Well, i guess so.

Science attempts to answer such questions through gathering data and building testable mathematical models which agree with the data. This has proven to be a much better approach than guessing. At present, we don't know the answer to this question, but it is possible that by applying the scientific method, we may know the answer in the future.

 

[alexg]

I.e. Was there a universe before the bigbang? Well, i guess so.

What would make you guess so?

 

[Drakkith]

I.e. Was there a universe before the bigbang? Well, i guess so.

Science doesn't do random guesses, it makes a hypothesis about something, gathers data, and does the best to come up with a theory to describe something. The argument that there must have been a universe before the big bang because something had to exist before us in order for the big bang to happen is simply pushing the question away. Was there a big bang before that with another universe before that one? See what I mean?

Hence, there must be an infinite cycle of universe: -∞, collapsing, expanding, collapsing, +∞, etc.

Maybe. There have been several theories on the fate of the universe, one of which was called the Big Crunch, where the universe expands to a certain point and then collapses before another big bang happens. Unfortunately, data from supernova measurements indicate that the Universe is accelerating in it's expansion and unless something changes it will not collapse in on itself, but continue to expand forever.

Now, During the course of the universe's life, it must have released some energy into the void beyond. Hence, over time its losing energy. Using E=mc^2, we can say the universe is losing its mass.

The universe is defined as EVERYTHING. It is not possible, according to science, for something to exist outside of the universe because we have defined the universe to be everything that does exist.

Hence, after some universe lives, the universe might have so less energy, that it will fail to expand again. Hence, the existence finally shrunk to an unfortunate point.

Any arguments to this?

Current evidence points to the opposite happening, as I explained above.

 

[Radrook]

What would make you guess so?

Otherwise the Big Bang would need to emerge from nowhere.

 

[Rob D]

The universe is defined as EVERYTHING. It is not possible, according to science, for something to exist outside of the universe because we have defined the universe to be everything that does exist.

With all possible humility I must take exception to this statement. The most current "guess" (and by the way, there's nothing wrong, in science, with that word. Even Feynman said we often start with an educated hunch) I like to call "Bubble Theory" which proposes that the MOAU [Mother Of All Universes] is in fact infinite and within contains an infinite number of bubbles each of which is a universe such as ours. They come into being (I refuse to use that word "created" in this context) by various means and there's no reason that ours couldn't have arisen out of the explosion of a singularity composed of the matter and mass of a former bubble.

It's a lovely notion - far from a theory as yet - with this infinite space of nothingness dotted with gayley lit bubbles of mass and energy bobbing around in it very occasionally providing the insanely rare circumstances needed to set up the carbon and liquid water and average temperatures to allow a bunch of sentient life forms the environment so that they can evolve to sit around speculating on what the heck just happened.

No, I've/we've no data to display, not yet. But as the idea catches on, if it does, and someone combs the extant data or digs up some new stuff sufficient to give enough credence to the idea for someone to cobble up a theory. Who knows, "more things in heaven and earth" and all that, believing that we occupy the only universe, and that it is finite just may come to be seen as the ultimate conceit.

Me, I'm rootin' for them bubbles.

Ta,
Rob

 

[Drakkith]

No, I've/we've no data to display, not yet. But as the idea catches on, if it does, and someone combs the extant data or digs up some new stuff sufficient to give enough credence to the idea for someone to cobble up a theory. Who knows, "more things in heaven and earth" and all that, believing that we occupy the only universe, and that it is finite just may come to be seen as the ultimate conceit.

I see nothing here that is any more logical or probable than our current theory. Besides, it isn't that no one has dug up the data yet, it's that there isn't any data to support your theory. (Yet at least)

After dealing with multiple threads concerning various aspect of the big bang and the universe today, I feel I must stress that there is NO evidence for anything other than a single universe currently. This does not preclude them from existing of course.

 

[salvestrom]

After dealing with multiple threads concerning various aspect of the big bang and the universe today, I feel I must stress that there is NO evidence for anything other than a single universe currently. This does not preclude them from existing of course.

Have we worn you out? /hug

He is, however, quite right. You can talk all you want about there being other universes, an outside even. The current reality is that we can't even tell if we're looking at the whole universe or not and unless we invent some spectacular piece of technology we may never find out.

So speculate! Imagine! Don't get attached. And come back to reality to breathe. String Theorists are turning purple.

 

[Chronos]

The bubble universe hypothesis has not been proven or disproven. It was long thought to be untestable, but, that is not necessarily true. Signatures of other 'bubbles' may exist in the CMB and scientists are looking for them. The results to date have been inconclusive. This may change once the Planck mission data is released, which is scheduled for January 2013. I would not at all be surprised if the release date 'slips' like it did for WMAP, but, I think sometime in 2013 is probable. There is considerable optimism the issue will be settled [?] by Planck.

That aside, I find the bubble universe idea uncomfortable. It strikes me as 'turtles all the way down'. It is, at best, an evasive 'answer' to the origin of the universe. And since everything is possible in multiverse theory, it does not even seem to qualify as an answer to anything, IMO.

 

[bapowell]

The most current "guess" (and by the way, there's nothing wrong, in science, with that word. Even Feynman said we often start with an educated hunch) I like to call "Bubble Theory" which proposes that the MOAU [Mother Of All Universes]...

Nothing wrong with educated guesses. As you say, that's science.

Me, I'm rootin' for them bubbles.

But this really isn't science. This a preconceived bias that is likely to make you come off as a crackpot. Beyond just making up guesses (here are a few that I can make right now: there's an all powerful being that created the universe, there are invisible sprites that live in my garden, and there's a celestial teapot in the asteroid belt somewhere between Mars and Jupiter) a scientist must consider what kinds of data would be necessary to confirm or invalidate their hypothesis -- they must devise an experiment. The problems with your suggestion are that 1) you offer no data source that might verify it. This is not being nitpicky -- given the nature of your theory, there is almost by definition no data that can possibly verify it and 2) the current standard cosmology theory works perfectly fine and it sounds significantly less complex (in Occam's sense of the word) than your suggestion. This is an important point -- modern cosmology is based on models that are derived from observational evidence. As Drakkith points out, these models might not correspond to reality -- but they are the most successful and parsimonious constructions that fully account for and address the data. That is how science is done.

You can suggest that our universe is one of many in some vaguely defined construct about which we have no fundamental understanding and no empirical evidence. Just like my celestial teapot. Without a plan for testing your hypothesis you're not really doing science, you're advocating a philosophy or some metaphysical worldview in a (rather impressive) poetic fashion.

 

[reggnar]

I.e. Was there a universe before the bigbang? Well, i guess so.

Hence, there must be an infinite cycle of universe: -∞, collapsing, expanding, collapsing, +∞, etc.

Now, During the course of the universe's life, it must have released some energy into the void beyond. Hence, over time its losing energy. Using E=mc^2, we can say the universe is losing its mass.

Hence, after some universe lives, the universe might have so less energy, that it will fail to expand again. Hence, the existence finally shrunk to an unfortunate point.

Any arguments to this?

Actually i agree with you on this but for example there was a universe before this one and it failed to expand hence causing to implode. Now everyone tends to think the big bang was the beginning of the universe and blah blah blah when it was the start of evolution processing what had just been destroyed or( reformed because nothing can't be destroyed) there is constant materialization, reformation, and creation.

Please tell me if anyone disagrees private message me.

What do i know I am only 16.

 

[Rob D]

Nothing wrong with educated guesses. As you say, that's science.

But this really isn't science. This a preconceived bias that is likely to make you come off as a crackpot. Beyond just making up guesses (here are a few that I can make right now: there's an all powerful being that created the universe, there are invisible sprites that live in my garden, and there's a celestial teapot in the asteroid belt somewhere between Mars and Jupiter) a scientist must consider what kinds of data would be necessary to confirm or invalidate their hypothesis -- they must devise an experiment. The problems with your suggestion are that 1) you offer no data source that might verify it. This is not being nitpicky -- given the nature of your theory, there is almost by definition no data that can possibly verify it and 2) the current standard cosmology theory works perfectly fine and it sounds significantly less complex (in Occam's sense of the word) than your suggestion. This is an important point -- modern cosmology is based on models that are derived from observational evidence. As Drakkith points out, these models might not correspond to reality -- but they are the most successful and parsimonious constructions that fully account for and address the data. That is how science is done.

You can suggest that our universe is one of many in some vaguely defined construct about which we have no fundamental understanding and no empirical evidence. Just like my celestial teapot. Without a plan for testing your hypothesis you're not really doing science, you're advocating a philosophy or some metaphysical worldview in a (rather impressive) poetic fashion.

Ok, my my, I'll stay away from any attempt at levity less I be perceived as a "crackpot" and none of us want that now do we.

Seriously, I was not implying a bias in my last line because, like you, I only want to deal with facts as determined by the science and as yet there is little to look at. It is just that, of the notions out there, it makes the most sense to me. If that is bias then, guilty.

Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere. Another bubble is a simple answer with all credit to Mr. Occam. Sadly, as a cosmological noob I don't have the chops to carry on the work much further than I already have which is not very far as you so gently pointed out. I reckon none of us wants to wallow about in a pool of philosophical rubbish, but speculation is not a bad thing as long as the practitioner admits that that is all it is.

RD

 

[Drakkith]

Actually i agree with you on this but for example there was a universe before this one and it failed to expand hence causing to implode. Now everyone tends to think the big bang was the beginning of the universe and blah blah blah when it was the start of evolution processing what had just been destroyed or( reformed because nothing can't be destroyed) there is constant materialization, reformation, and creation.

Please tell me if anyone disagrees private message me.

What do i know I am only 16.

There is no evidence for this, and in fact there is probably more evidence that it is NOT like this given our observations on the accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

[Algren]

"There is no Evidence for this"

"There is no Evidence for that"

... It is not possible to find evidence if we sit on Earth and make observations, expecting the slow messenger, i.e. em waves, to travel through the whole universe and say, "Hey, check this out! A tiny blink of light!"...

Acc to me there are only 2 ways we can do something about this question here on earth:

1. Argue, discuss and find a solution which suits all.

2. Channel enough energy to break the current Space/time fabric and expect a miracle to happen. The LHC is a gazillion times far from this. I read somewhere, that you need a Very LHC as large as the solar system to dive wayy deep into the subatomic scales.

Although, the bubble theory doesn't make much sense, no evidence to back it up at all. Atleast Big bang has evidence.

But, if the universe is accelerato-expanding, and stars cool down, then what will happen? Non-existence of light? Non-existence of life? And later, hardly any existence. All energy dissipatated.. all heat lost... Then, where did big bang come from?

Perhaps it was sometype of earthquake, caused by self-disturbances in its dimensional planes, like what happens in Earth's magma. Or maybe, a highly intelligent civilization channelled hell-loads of energy to warp the space-time into itself and converge the whole universe, and later enough mass for big bang.

Those are just fantasies, so, which theory has the best backing as of now, better backing than the big bang and big crunch?

 

[phinds]

But, if the universe is accelerato-expanding, and stars cool down, then what will happen? Non-existence of light? Non-existence of life? And later, hardly any existence. All energy dissipatated.. all heat lost...

exactly

Then, where did big bang come from?

Why do you see the two situations as related. That is, what does the heat death of the universe have to do with whether or not it started with a singularity?

 

[reggnar]

There is no evidence for this, and in fact there is probably more evidence that it is NOT like this given our observations on the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Thats where you lack understanding buddy, look at it from all perspectives. Because looking at it from a philosophical one makes more sense but lacks evidence unlike a scientific perspective. So instead of argueing with me look at it from a philosophical view and then try to find the scientific evidence. If not for you for me please.

But what do i know I am only 16.

Pm me

 

[bapowell]

But what do i know I am only 16.

Exactly.

 

[reggnar]

There is no evidence for this, and in fact there is probably more evidence that it is NOT like this given our observations on the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Oh and we want to understand the universe sooo bad . Well you can't from looking at it in a narrow scientific point of perspective. You can only understand by using the knowledge of religion, philosophy, and science which also known as theology. Like h.p bhlavatski

 

[reggnar]

There is no evidence for this, and in fact there is probably more evidence that it is NOT like this given our observations on the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Exactly.

What are you implying enlighten me

 

[bapowell]

What are you implying enlighten me

No need. You already have all the answers.

 

[reggnar]

No need. You already have all the answers.

So youre going to judge me by my age ?

 

[reggnar]

I don't give what you think and your rude insult mr. "science advisor"

 

[reggnar]

Learn some manners

 

[phinds]

Thats where you lack understanding buddy, look at it from all perspectives. Because looking at it from a philosophical one makes more sense but lacks evidence unlike a scientific perspective. So instead of argueing with me look at it from a philosophical view and then try to find the scientific evidence. If not for you for me please.

But what do i know I am only 16.

Pm me

If you want philosophy, go over to the philosoply forum. This is a science thread, and your admission that your point of view has no scientific evidence means it doesn't belong here.

Also, you may not have intended it, but I read your comment "Thats where you lack understanding buddy" as being quite rude. Drakkith spends a lot of time on this forum helping people gain understanding, so you'd do well to listen to him instead of being insulting.

 

[reggnar]

If you want philosophy, go over to the philosoply forum. This is a science thread, and your admission that your point of view has no scientific evidence means it doesn't belong here.

Also, you may not have intended it, but I read your comment "Thats where you lack understanding buddy" as being quite rude. Drakkith spends a lot of time on this forum helping people gain understanding, so you'd do well to listen to him instead of being insulting.

Youre right. looking at it now it does seem rude,my apologies.

 

[Drakkith]

Thats where you lack understanding buddy, look at it from all perspectives. Because looking at it from a philosophical one makes more sense but lacks evidence unlike a scientific perspective. So instead of argueing with me look at it from a philosophical view and then try to find the scientific evidence. If not for you for me please.

This is Physics Forums, not Philosophy Forums. We deal with real science here, which involves things that are observable. If you like philosophy there is a subforum, but specific rules must be followed to avoid degeneration of threads into pure nonsense.

Oh and we want to understand the universe sooo bad . Well you can't from looking at it in a narrow scientific point of perspective. You can only understand by using the knowledge of religion, philosophy, and science which also known as theology. Like h.p bhlavatski

Science is very different from religion and even from philosophy. It involves the use and application of the Scientific method, and is responsible for practically ALL advances in both knowledge and technology in the last several hundred years.(Arguably much longer) Neither religion nor philosophy actually observes nature and tries to understand it. Science does not look at nature and try to make it fit it's own laws, it looks at it and tries to find the laws that govern it. I think you would agree that given our ability to build a billion transistors on something the size of a fingernail, launch people into space, and a million other reasons involving the accumulation and application of knowledge that we have been pretty freaking successful.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Learn some manners

At 16 years old I understood when people were displaying bad manners and when people were responding to ill advised comments with little or no reasoning - you should try and make the distinction!

Remember that most posters here are trying to help, Drakkith is a well respected poster so you should appreciate when he takes time to help you with your current lack of understanding.

I mean this in the kindest possible way and would always encourage learning. Being 16 does not exclude you from intelligent conversation or having meaningful insights or discussions, just try to moderate yourself and your ideas in line with the forum and you will get a lot out of it!

Cosmo

 

[Algren]

I don't give what you think and your rude insult mr. "science advisor"

Mr. Reggnar, if this gives you relief from any perspective: I am 16 too, that doesn't mean i have to be so rude or ungrateful like you are.

Dont say this:

But what do i know I am only 16.

Do not under estimate yourself, by saying that statement you yourself are implying that you do not aim to understand further.

====================================================================================================

Back to the topic:

So, universe is expanding, right...

and let's return to the place where we left the topic, about 10 posts ago, thanks to...nevermind:

By Phinds "Why do you see the two situations as related. That is, what does the heat death of the universe have to do with whether or not it started with a singularity?"

By saying "Death", kind sir, you automatically proved that it had a "Birth" right? Now, current observations are pointing to a "Dense Young Universe" billions of years ago, right?

One sec, how did you say they were unrelated to each other? Dude, its expanding, and it will perhaps have a death upto null radiation when it is very spread-out. Then, there must have been an earlier state when everything was close together and had extensive radiation?

Nice, with that single statement of urs, i proved u wrong.

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.

==========================================================================================================

And about philosophy: I do think the same that its better to first look into philosphy and then derive its scientific proof, but no, that's what not is correct. Although its necessary to be 'philosophical' to some extent before further scientific progress, i.e. we must think about other ways and laws and imaginations of a particular state b4 we can take the next step. But that does not mean that we first go to philosophy and then derive reality from something which is just a well-thought-dream.

Religion is even more inaccurate than philosophy, and goes to explain stuff with what not miracles and etc. Religion and philosophy both try to define what is currently beyond the realms of science, but they cannot be assumed as perfectly true without scientific backing.

 

[phinds]

Nice, with that single statement of urs, i proved u wrong.

Actually, I am pretty much unable to follow your ramblings, so I can't be sure if you have "proved" anything, but I am confident that you have shown no connection between the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe other than that I used a common English word "death" to colloquilly descirbe the end, and you tied that, with no evident logic, to a "birth".

 

[Alayah]

This is a very interesting topic.

 

[Drakkith]

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.

There are several theories that support a multiverse, but none of them have any evidence yet. String theory predicts 11 dimensions I believe, but they don't quite work the way you are imagining it.

 

[cephron]

Neither religion nor philosophy actually observes nature and tries to understand it.

A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.On topic: I'm curious about what Rob D meant when he said:

Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.

I don't know what this is referring to. If it's black holes, I thought Hawking had just recently established that neither infalling energy nor information is lost...?

 

[Chronos]

I think if we stick to observables, it makes more sense than 'wow' models.

 

[bapowell]

A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.

They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence. Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.

 

[cephron]

They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence.

Yes, agreed.

Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.

Not necessarily. Creationism doesn't speak for all of religion. I don't think the statement above is either a definition of religion, a necessary implication, or a common denominator across religions...

But again...on topic: found the article where Hawking shows that information is not lost in black holes. My mistake; I thought it was recent, but it's actually really old. Article is here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Doesn't this show that there are no "bits of our universe being cast off somewhere"? We get all the energy and information back.
Or when Rob D said

Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.

Was he referring not to black holes but something else entirely?