Fate Of Universe - Hindus, Buddhists & Mayans Right?

[Gold Barz]

what do you think is the fate of the universe will be, i think that the hindus, buddhists, and mayans were right, the universe goes in cycles (since most of the stuff in it does) it makes sense to me, plus i find it hard to accept that the universe will just slowly decay forever, bit by bit

 

[wuliheron]

I think aliens from the seventh dimension will buy the universe and convert it into condos.

 

[Gold Barz]

i think that your corny

 

[pmb_phy]

what do you think is the fate of the universe will be, i think that the hindus, buddhists, and mayans were right, the universe goes in cycles (since most of the stuff in it does) it makes sense to me, plus i find it hard to accept that the universe will just slowly decay forever, bit by bit

I think that the universe will keep on expanding forever with no cycles at all. That seems to be what will happen as of the lastest observations/theory.

Pete

 

[Nereid]

Since this is philosophy, how do philosophers go about answering questions such as 'what is the fate of the universe?'?

 

[Gold Barz]

I think that the universe will keep on expanding forever with no cycles at all.

theres no reason to be sure that it won't change

 

[Prometheus]

I think aliens from the seventh dimension will buy the universe and convert it into condos.

Try as I might, I just can't tell if you are joking or not.

I don't know if I should join in calling you corny or if I should try to get an early bid on one of the condos.

 

[pmb_phy]

theres no reason to be sure that it won't change

I disagree. There are good reasons to be believe that it won't change. At this time the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. That indicates the presence of dark energy. The presence of dark energy can be taken to mean that the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate. But I agree that there is no proof that it won't.

But if it is as suspected, i.e. a non-vanishing cosmological constant, then the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate. Unless, of course, one or more of the postulates on which this prediction is derived is incorrect.

Pete

 

[Prometheus]

There are good reasons to be sure that it won't change.

I disagree completely. In such a theoretical field, which you yourself recognize is full of poorly understood concepts to support modern theory, there is NEVER a good reason to be SURE of anything.

At this time the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. That indicates the presence of dark energy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Dark energy, which by its very name is a poorly understood concept that was created to make the data fit with observations, is not indicated by the understanding that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The presence of dark energy is a poorly understood method of attempting to fit the recognition of the accelerating expansion into modern theory.

The presence of dark energy can be taken to mean that the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate.

OK. But if you believe that this is SURELY the only way that it can be taken to mean, then you are not being scientific about this, in my opinion.

But I agree that there is no proof that it won't.

Good. Then, why did you say that you are SURE?

Since we don't understand what dark energy is then we can't be sure of its behaviour. But if it is as suspected, i.e. a non-vanishing cosmological constant, then the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate. Unless, of course, one or more of the postulates on which this prediction is derived is incorrect.

An extremely highly probable scenario.

 

[Gold Barz]

we don't know much about dark energy, for all we know the missing dark energy needed for the universe to oscillate is seeping into existence now, little by little, so little we cannot detect it (just because they are assumed to be absent doesn't mean they will always be absent), the truly correct answer to my question is "we don't know, insufficient data"

heres an interesting and realistic theory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040728090338.htm

 

[wuliheron]

Try as I might, I just can't tell if you are joking or not.

I don't know if I should join in calling you corny or if I should try to get an early bid on one of the condos.

Just try to buy as much of the universe as you can for now. You can buy plots on the moon and Mars already.

As for being corny, I've been called worse by better aliens.

No, really, I was just making a point. The joke was just thrown in for those of us who still have a sense of humor about such things.

 

[pmb_phy]

we don't know much about dark energy, for all we know the missing dark energy needed for the universe to oscillate is seeping into existence now, little by little, so little we cannot detect it (just because they are assumed to be absent doesn't mean they will always be absent), the truly correct answer to my question is "we don't know, insufficient data"

heres an interesting and realistic theory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040728090338.htm

I suppose I phrased that wrong. I believe I used an incorrect term. I should have said There are reasons to be believe that it won't change.. I.e. I should have left out "sure." I have corrected it above.

Now to the present topic - I'm referring to theory. The theory which I was thinking of to describe the dynamics of the universe is (1) Einstein's general theory of relativity and (2) The cosmological principle (3) non-vanishing of the cosmological constant.

The acceleration of the universe may be the result of a non-zero cosmological constant. There is another name for the cosmological constant - that name is Dark Energy (weird name for a constant, but I don't make up the terms). As the name "cosmological constant" implies - its constant. It does not change.

So instead of saying "sure" I'll say that there is evidence for it. However there are other explanations. One of which is matter which has negative pressure. The cosmological constant mimics negative pressure but is not identical to it. In the case of matter with negative pressure then perhaps you're correct. As you say, we just don't know. There is as of yet no physical explanation of it as of yet.

Pete

 

[dedaNoe]

I think that the universe will keep on expanding forever with no cycles at all. That seems to be what will happen as of the lastest observations/theory.

Pete

Then the universe must be an open physical system.

 

[pmb_phy]

Then the universe must be an open physical system.

Yes. Sorry. I neglected to mention that. I said this in another thread on this subject today, i.e. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=298364&postcount=16

I mentioned that there.

Pete

 

[Tom McCurdy]

universe ends: Two multidimensional membranes collide causing the end of our "universe" starting many others.

 

[pmb_phy]

Then the universe must be an open physical system.

Then again ... what do you mean by this?

I incorrectly referenced another thread above. An universe which has an accelerating expansion may be a closed universe. What is it you mean by "open"?

Pete

 

[Gold Barz]

they are not even sure if the universe is open or closed or flat

 

[pmb_phy]

they are not even sure if the universe is open or closed or flat

What proof do you have of this?

Seems to me that cosmologists believe that the universe is flat from the results of Boomerang.

Seems clear to me what "Boomerang' Proves Universe is Flat means
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/archive_cm_detail.cfm?item_id=288

Boomerang backs flat universe
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/6/3

The universe is flat - official
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/4/14/1

Universe 'proven flat'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

Strong Evidence for Flat Universe Reported by BOOMERANG Project
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html

Boomerang Data, Analyzed at NERSC, Reveals Flat Universe
http://www.nersc.gov/news/annual_reports/annrep00/02compsci_boomerang.html

BOOMERANG Antarctic Balloon Flight Sees a Flat Universe: NERSC Supercomputer Analysis Crucial to the Result
http://www.nersc.gov/news/newsroom/boomerang4-26-00.php

etc

Pete


Pete