Will the speed of light change in the Universe's distant future?

[Lost in Space]

I've read that in the far distant future that because of the expansion of space, protons and other particles will grow to huge sizes compared with today and some may grow to be almost equivalent to the current size of the universe. But will the speed of light increase as well? If these particles are so huge, wouldn't it take an electron aeons to orbit them, even if electrons increase in size as well?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Could you post where you read this? I ask because I am not familiar with this theory and would like to read up on it if possible.

 

[phinds]

I've read that in the far distant future that because of the expansion of space, protons and other particles will grow to huge sizes compared with today and some may grow to be almost equivalent to the current size of the universe. But will the speed of light increase as well? If these particles are so huge, wouldn't it take an electron aeons to orbit them, even if electrons increase in size as well?

I'm a newbie at this stuff, but I'm confident that this is utter hogwash. As WannabeNewton asked, please post your reference.

 

[Drakkith]

The physical size of objects will not increase. However, some believe that the accelerating expansion of the universe will eventually "rip" everything apart. Meaning that first galaxies will no longer be bound into clusters, then the galaxies themselves will be pulled apart, and then the stars, and so on and so on until the basic subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons are ripped apart.

 

[pessimist]

I assume you mean the heat death of the universe?

 

[Lost in Space]

Could you post where you read this? I ask because I am not familiar with this theory and would like to read up on it if possible.

My apologies. I got this information from 'Parallel Worlds' by Michio Kaku (Chapter 10 - The End of Everything). "Some physicists have speculated that these "atoms" of electrons and antielectrons might be able to form new building blocks for intelligent life in this dark era. However, the difficulties facing this idea are formidable. An atom of positronium is comparable in size to an ordinary atom. But an atom of positronium in the dark era would be about 10¹² megaparsecs across, millions of times larger than the observable universe of today. So in this dark era, while these "atoms" may form they would be the size of an entire universe. Since the universe in the dark era will have expanded to enormous distances, it would easily be able to accommodate these gigantic atoms of positronium. But since these positronium atoms are so large, it means that any "chemistry" involving these "atoms" would be on colossal time scales totally different from anything we know."

 

[Lost in Space]

I'm a newbie at this stuff, but I'm confident that this is utter hogwash. As WannabeNewton asked, please post your reference.

Sorry, my mistake. Michio Kaku says that the emergence of these "atoms" which are really more like electrons, would be around after the death of protons, although others say that before protons eventually die (fizzle out?) the expansion of space means that they will be comparable in size with the stars of today. It's mind boggling I know but if we could somehow travel back in time a few billion years would things in the universe be a lot smaller than compared with today? And how would that affect gravitational density? I would have thought that if the universe was smaller the gravity would have been more concentrated in less space, so would the same laws of physics apply as those of today?

 

[Lost in Space]

The physical size of objects will not increase. However, some believe that the accelerating expansion of the universe will eventually "rip" everything apart. Meaning that first galaxies will no longer be bound into clusters, then the galaxies themselves will be pulled apart, and then the stars, and so on and so on until the basic subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons are ripped apart.

With respect, doesn't the fact that different people have different beliefs about this point to the possibilities, rather than the probabilities? Not that I'm arguing you understand, as my interest is purely from a lay perspective. But if the universe, after an unimaginable amount of time has expanded to an unimaginable size, doesn't this mean that the temperature will eventually reach absolute zero or have so many zeros after the point that it could be more or less considered as such?
One of the many things that puzzles me about the increasing expansion of space is where the energy for it is coming from? Or is space expanding because of some other reason? Doesn't the first law of thermodynamics say that energy can't be created or destroyed? So do you think that all of this energy could possibly be coming from 'somewhere else'?

 

[phinds]

Sorry, my mistake. Michio Kaku says that the emergence of these "atoms" which are really more like electrons, would be around after the death of protons, although others say that before protons eventually die (fizzle out?) the expansion of space means that they will be comparable in size with the stars of today. It's mind boggling I know but if we could somehow travel back in time a few billion years would things in the universe be a lot smaller than compared with today? And how would that affect gravitational density? I would have thought that if the universe was smaller the gravity would have been more concentrated in less space, so would the same laws of physics apply as those of today?

Was there something about Drakkith's statement "The physical size of objects will not increase" that you do not understand or do you just not believe that?

Yes, the UNIVERSE was a lot smaller in the past but none of the particles were, nor are they going to get bigger in the future. Just farther apart, although I don't think it is definite that small scale constructs like planets, or particularly atoms, will be pulled apart.

 

[Drakkith]

With respect, doesn't the fact that different people have different beliefs about this point to the possibilities, rather than the probabilities? Not that I'm arguing you understand, as my interest is purely from a lay perspective. But if the universe, after an unimaginable amount of time has expanded to an unimaginable size, doesn't this mean that the temperature will eventually reach absolute zero or have so many zeros after the point that it could be more or less considered as such?
One of the many things that puzzles me about the increasing expansion of space is where the energy for it is coming from? Or is space expanding because of some other reason? Doesn't the first law of thermodynamics say that energy can't be created or destroyed? So do you think that all of this energy could possibly be coming from 'somewhere else'?

Let me put it this way. There is no reason to believe that the expansion of the universe will cause physical objects themselves to increase in size. That's what I mean when I say that they won't.

Yes, one of the theorized possibilities is that the universe will eventually end up in "heat death" where everything is very near absolute zero.

As for the expansion of space, I'm honestly not sure. Dark Energy may be providing the force behind it, or it may be something entirely different. The universe might not even need a force to cause it to expand.

 

[Lost in Space]

Let me put it this way. There is no reason to believe that the expansion of the universe will cause physical objects themselves to increase in size. That's what I mean when I say that they won't.

Yes, one of the theorized possibilities is that the universe will eventually end up in "heat death" where everything is very near absolute zero.

As for the expansion of space, I'm honestly not sure. Dark Energy may be providing the force behind it, or it may be something entirely different. The universe might not even need a force to cause it to expand.

Well, there seems to be a difference of scientific opinion on whether matter will increase in relative size or not. I, not being a scientist, am left confused. Is the space inside atoms somehow different then from the space outside of atoms?

 

[phinds]

Well, there seems to be a difference of scientific opinion on whether matter will increase in relative size or not. I, not being a scientist, am left confused. Is the space inside atoms somehow different then from the space outside of atoms?

This issue is not the characteristic of the space inside atoms, it is a matter of the binding force that holds together the elements that make up the atom. This is NOT the amazingly weak force of gravity that binds cosmological elements this is very strong stuff and there is no indication that whatever "dark energy" is, it has enough force to overcome that binding force, by many orders of magnitude. For similar reasons, it is extremely unlikely that planet-sized objects will be disturbed by dark energy and it seems questionable even whether galaxies will be. On the other hand it seems definite that everything larger than galactic clusters WILL moved apart over vast time.

 

[Hurkyl]

Let me put it this way. There is no reason to believe that the expansion of the universe will cause physical objects themselves to increase in size. That's what I mean when I say that they won't.

Yes there is -- if gravitational expansion becomes non-negligible on mesoscopic and microscopic scales, that would adjust the balance of the forces that hold things together. (Assuming they stay bound)


However, I am somewhat boggled at how Kaku could imagine an electron and a positron being bound 12 megaparsecs apart would be a reasonable or even expected possibility.