Big Rip Cosmology and Many-Worlds Quantum Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of a "Big Rip" scenario in cosmology and its relationship with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is noted that the "Big Rip" is largely considered unrealistic by physicists, as evidence suggests that gravitationally bound structures like galaxies will not expand but will eventually become cold and dark. The many-worlds interpretation is described as merely a theoretical framework that does not affect the fundamental evolution of realities, which would likely follow the same trajectory. The concept of phantom energy, which could drive a Big Rip, is deemed quantum mechanically unstable, and current observations do not support this scenario. Overall, the fate of the universe remains uncertain, pending further observational data on accelerated expansion.
caspiansea3
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
My question is based on two theoretical assumptions. 1) The universe continues with its expansion resulting in an eventual "Big Rip". 2)The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. In this scenario will all the "branches of reality" in the many-worlds undergo the "Big Rip" or will some branches undergo a different outcome?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
caspiansea3 said:
My question is based on two theoretical assumptions. 1) The universe continues with its expansion resulting in an eventual "Big Rip". 2)The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. In this scenario will all the "branches of reality" in the many-worlds undergo the "Big Rip" or will some branches undergo a different outcome?

I don't believe in the "many worlds" so can't help you there but the "big rip" has long been considered unrealistic by most physicists. The expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate but there is no evidence that objects as gravitationally bound as galaxies will expand, they will just eventually go cold and dark.
 
The Many Worlds Interpretation is exactly that. An interpretation. The actual theory makes no distinction between the different interpretations. In any case, even if it were true, it's just talking about the probabilities involved in QM. So as far as I know every reality would undergo the same general evolution.
 
The big rip is the expected fate of the universe if the energy density driving the accelerated expansion is increasing in time. Current observations have not confirmed that this is the case -- the accelerated expansion of recent times could well be the result of a cosmological constant. So the big rip is not a working assumption in the concordance cosmological model.

Energy that absurdly increases in density is called phantom energy: it is quantum mechanically unstable and so any description in terms of fundamental particles/fields is likely doomed to failure. There is some room for understanding phantom energy as an emergent or effective phenomenon, but there's little cause to worry about these things until we get a better observational handle on the nature of the accelerated expansion.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Asteroid, Data - 1.2% risk of an impact on December 22, 2032. The estimated diameter is 55 m and an impact would likely release an energy of 8 megatons of TNT equivalent, although these numbers have a large uncertainty - it could also be 1 or 100 megatons. Currently the object has level 3 on the Torino scale, the second-highest ever (after Apophis) and only the third object to exceed level 1. Most likely it will miss, and if it hits then most likely it'll hit an ocean and be harmless, but...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
537
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top