/sci/ - Science & Math

Then it's time for your meds

for the sake of argument, you will be doomed to eternal life it you harbor idolizing death

>>14727438
If you actually succeeded in converting all Dark Energy into matter, then gravity would have absolutely free reign as it holds infinite range.
Without Dark Energy, the expansion of the universe would stop and actually collapse in on itself

The result would be the Big Crunch

>>14727725

So in this hypothetical quarks would convert the big rip into a Big Crunch.

But will it work?

This is very cutting edge physics but I feel something like this violates laws somewhere.

In regards to a timeline of the far future, in approximately 10x10^10^56 years you have a timeframe so mind bendingly vast that quantum tunneling in any isolated part of the universe could create new inflationary events and new big bangs.

>>14727932

This ‘quark crunch’ scenario would only occur in a big rip universe. The big rip takes place on time scales significantly smaller than heat death scenarios.

I think this model will turn baryons into catalysts for mesons.

I don’t know what would happen to the universe if baryons or antibaryons started converting dark energy onto infinite meson factories.

>>14727438
Won't the quarks decay faster than they can be pulled apart?

>>14727438
How about you slow down and stop projecting this much until you get solid confirmation and proof of the fundamental things you base all this off?
You're basically doing philosophy

>>14727438
>>14727914
Few problems, free quarks don't last, are massless. Additionally, the big rip theory is that the universe will eventually be expanding faster than the speed of light (cuz even if matter can't do that, space can). Gravity propagates at the speed of light, so it ain't putting anything back together at that point.

>>14729892

But won’t free quarks just form muons?

>>14730111
I think at some interval you'd end up with pi-mesons, as the quark would pull its anti as it separated, in order to make everything color-neutral, but unlike throwing high energy electrons at a proton, there's no energy added to the system to pull an anti-particle from. Thus you'd probably end up with an extraordinarily short lived "free" quark with no real mass. I don't think there's any way to turn an up or down quark into a muon (electrons can become muons but that's lepton to lepton). *Maybe* you can do something with it if rishons are a thing, but I couldn't say what.

>>14730176

It there is energy. Dark energy. It is pulling apart all nucleons at this stage of the big rip.

Mesons pulled apart will make more mesons. Baryons will catalyze the production of mesons.

The only thing that would be happening in this scenario would be E equals M C squared.

Mesons emerging from dark energy, and thus increasing the mass of the universe.

I propose, but not necessarily condone, a hypothesis that dark energy applying a big rip to nucleons will produce quarks at an unstoppable rate, and thus induce a quark-crunch scenario.

This will likely result in another Big Bang. The universe may have already been through this an unknown amount of times before this universe came into existence and may continue an unknown amount of times after the destruction of this universe.

>>14730501
(Not the guy)
I can entertain your idea of Dark Energy being converted into matter
But I cannot allow the idea of this happening over and over primarily because you already spent all the Dark Energy in the universe

If ever, there would be no second Big Bang because, without Dark Energy, the expansion would be so slow it would just collapse into a blackhole

>>14730501
The amount of dark energy in the universe is constant, it's not going to grow with the expansion of the universe, it's just that the ratio of dark energy to other contributions is increasing, resulting in an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime. Thus, unlike with a particle collision, there's no new energy to be had.

Plus, to defeat strong force, you'd already have to be expanding faster than the speed of light, so even if you could produce particles with mass from the rip, they could never pass information or gravity to each other.

Not that I'm against the idea of repeating big bangs, as a repeating cycle would at least be in line with how everything else in the universe tends to work, and we really don't have a solid grasp on this stuff (some fundamentals are clearly lacking). I don't, however, see how you'd pull it off in this fashion under these models.

>>14730700

You make a good point. If the universe were expanding enough to tear apart nucleons then There would always be enough space for the nucleons to go and it would be unlikely that, even converting dark energy into quarks that the process would overpopulate the universe.

Best not to worry about this.