How will the universe empty out?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of the universe's expansion on matter and radiation, specifically addressing the concept of the universe "emptying out." Participants explore the fate of matter and radiation as they move beyond causal horizons and the meaning of decreasing matter density in a cosmological context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the notion of matter and radiation "leaving" the universe, suggesting that they remain within their causal horizons until transformed into radiation.
  • There is a debate over whether the universe can be considered "empty" if particles and fields still exist but are too sparse for significant interactions.
  • One participant proposes that as matter density decreases, the universe must be emptying out, prompting requests for clarification on alternative views.
  • Another participant discusses the difference between having zero or one particle per horizon and how these states might be achieved over time.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of expanding spacetime volume on excitations and fluctuations, with conflicting views on which effect dominates in an expanding universe.
  • Some participants express confusion over the terminology used, particularly the phrase "empties out," and its implications for the presence of matter.
  • There are calls for references to support claims made regarding the behavior of matter and radiation in an expanding universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the fate of matter and the interpretation of decreasing density in the context of cosmic expansion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of cosmological models, the need for specific references to support claims, and unresolved questions about the nature of spacetime and particle interactions in an expanding universe.

durant35
Messages
292
Reaction score
11
I have a problem understanding where does the matter/radiation go to because of the expansion of our universe. Eventually all normal matter and radiation will leave our causal patch, but the word leave is pretty unconvincing in this case.

They will stay in their own causal horizon until each particle gets turned to radiation and the radiation also leaves the horizon, but how is this synonimous with emptying out.

Speaking globally, if the matter density as a whole decreases, where does the matter go? How will the universe as a whole/globally be empty?
 
Space news on Phys.org
durant35 said:
I have a problem understanding where does the matter/radiation go to because of the expansion of our universe. Eventually all normal matter and radiation will leave our causal patch, but the word leave is pretty unconvincing in this case.

why do you think it will go anywhere ?

durant35 said:
They will stay in their own causal horizon until each particle gets turned to radiation and the radiation also leaves the horizon, but how is this synonimous with emptying out.

really ? do you have a reference for this ?

Do you really think the Earth and any other planet etc will just dissolve away into nothing ?

durant35 said:
Speaking globally, if the matter density as a whole decreases, where does the matter go? How will the universe as a whole/globally be empty?

again ... why do you think it will go anywhere ?
 
davenn said:
why do you think it will go anywhere ?
Do you really think the Earth and any other planet etc will just dissolve away into nothing ?again ... why do you think it will go anywhere ?
How not? As far as I know, matter density decreases - therefore universe definitely empties out. If not, can you explain what is the alternative?
 
durant35 said:
have a problem understanding where does the matter/radiation go to because of the expansion of our universe.
Matter that is gravitationally bound doesn't expand, the distance between distant objects expands. It doesn't even become obvious until you look at the distances of millions of light years, so galaxies aren't "stretching out", just the distance between galaxies is growing...
 
durant35 said:
I have a problem understanding where does the matter/radiation go to because of the expansion of our universe. Eventually all normal matter and radiation will leave our causal patch, but the word leave is pretty unconvincing in this case.

They will stay in their own causal horizon until each particle gets turned to radiation and the radiation also leaves the horizon, but how is this synonimous with emptying out.

Speaking globally, if the matter density as a whole decreases, where does the matter go? How will the universe as a whole/globally be empty?
For a good amount of detail, I rather like this wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

As for the end state, a universe with zero or one particle per horizon is effectively completely empty.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: durant35
kimbyd said:
For a good amount of detail, I rather like this wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

As for the end state, a universe with zero or one particle per horizon is effectively completely empty.

What is the difference between a zero particle per horizon or one particle per horizon? How would one situation be achieved and how would the other one be achieved?

My motivation for this is basically something about excitations leaving the horizon. We may imagine the whole universe expanding which will 'increase' the number of excitations/fluctuations simply because of the rate multiplied by the expanding spacetime volume. But on the other hand, the universe get colder and emptier per horizon, so fluctuations and excitations don't form, matter hardly ever interacts. Which effect wins in your opinion?
 
durant35 said:
How not? As far as I know, matter density decreases - therefore universe definitely empties out. If not, can you explain what is the alternative?

you are still not providing references for these claims of yours
PLEASE do so
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
I think the phrase 'empties out' is the problem.
Particles and fields still are there, but not enough for any significant interaction.
Nothing of any consequence can happen any more, maybe a new photon happens once every billion years.
 
durant35 said:
What is the difference between a zero particle per horizon or one particle per horizon? How would one situation be achieved and how would the other one be achieved?
Each horizon would contain either zero or one particle. Over time, the number of horizons that could be defined containing zero particles would grow, while the number containing a single massive particle would stay the same.

durant35 said:
My motivation for this is basically something about excitations leaving the horizon. We may imagine the whole universe expanding which will 'increase' the number of excitations/fluctuations simply because of the rate multiplied by the expanding spacetime volume. But on the other hand, the universe get colder and emptier per horizon, so fluctuations and excitations don't form, matter hardly ever interacts. Which effect wins in your opinion?
The latter, since excitations will die out in each and every horizon you could possibly define.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: durant35
  • #11
durant35 said:
if the matter density as a whole decreases, where does the matter go?

It doesn't "go" anywhere. Matter density is decreasing due to the expansion of the universe--pieces of matter are moving away from each other.

durant35 said:
We may imagine the whole universe expanding which will 'increase' the number of excitations/fluctuations simply because of the rate multiplied by the expanding spacetime volume.

"Spacetime volume" doesn't expand; spacetime is a 4-dimensional geometry, it doesn't "change". As for "excitation rate", I'm not sure what you mean.

You appear to have some basic misunderstandings about our current best fit model of the universe. Since you have been asked for references and have failed to give them, this thread is closed. You need to give specific sources for where you are getting your understanding from; otherwise it's impossible to tell where your understanding is going wrong.

This thread will remain closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K