/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3542285
Well, for starters, it's looking incredibly likely that this universe will end in heat death, aka not forming a new big bang.

Enthropy.

/r/'ing that one short story by Asimov
'the last question' or some shit

>>3542299
Proof?

Anti-gravity in our universe means the net energy is zero, so it very well could have come from nothing. As for life, we are products of the elemental particles of the universe. We are nothing more than a complex assembly of matter that eventually became self aware. In a sense, we are the universe observing itself through our conciousness.

>>3542310
But if you can state that all matter has always been here for an infinite amount of time, while a hard concept to accept, it answers a lot of questions.

>>3542305
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

>>3542326
The universe's expansion could reverse and collapse upon itself causing the black hole singularity that would allow another big bang.

>>3542341
Seems unlikely given current knowledge of cosmology.

>>3542341
I have to disagree with you. All evidence points to a universe that ends with no more usable energy. Everything freezes. It is perhaps possible for another universe to bud off of ours, but according to all contemporary theoretical physics our universe will keep expanding. The effect of gravity is no longer powerful enough to pull everything back on itself. Look up dark enery. It's pretty interesting stuff

>>3542316
Yeh, but if you believe in the big bang theory, I don't really think you can view an entire universe squeezed into a smaller space than a grain of sand as matter. Elemental particles could not exist at this density. Perhaps if instead of starting at a singularity, if you went back in time billions of years, the size of the universe would be an asymptote to a certain size. Our calculations of the rate of expansion of the universe are based off our observation of light, who's to say this expansion is constant though?

>>3542353
We do not know enough about the nature of dark energy to determine that it is impossible for the universe to reverse upon itself.

>>3542310
great post anon. I would add that this level of self-awareness is only possible when language and metaphor is invented by the brain, which we did fully roughly 3,000 years ago, at the recognized beginning of modern civilization in ancient Greece. (ref. Julian Jaynes)

>>3542361
You're right about that. We're talking about events that may happen in 100 trillion years. However more evidence points to increased expansion, mainly the exponentially accelerating expansion. Remember, there is no law preventing space itself from traveling faster than light, and gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces (and it's effect can be measured). I am no physicist, but I have heard many physicists explain that eventually gravity will lose its influence (as it already has in those areas expaning faster and faster), and to my knowledge, there is no other force that would pull the universe together again.

>>3542387
However much evidence points towards the universe expanding extremely fast to the point it basically freezes over due to a lack of energy for any more reactions to take place, I think that a collapse of the universe and a "restart" is less...bleak :3

>>3542310
Aren't you overlooking the multiple worlds interpretation here? I don't think we fully understand the role of the observer in the wavefunction collapse phenomenon. At least not enough to make definitive statements.

>>3542378
I also think it's our duty to explore as much of this universe as possible. It would be a shame if the entirety of our race was confined to this one planet for eternity. Seems like such a waste of this incredible gift.

>>3542396
How the fuck are we meant to get to another planet without folding space or creating a wormhole

>>3542393
Certainly wasn't meant as a definitive statement, just a thought. Don't really know what a 'wavefunction collapse phenomenon' is. Explain?

>>3542401
Could get to Mars and other planets in our solar system without creating a wormhole. Future humans will solve the problems of how to explore further. If we ever become a level 3 civilisation, we could harness the power of the sun to open up a wormhole. Could be some other way, can't say for sure.

>>3542408
>going to Mars
Yeah, what potential does that have other than a money sink?

>>3542411
Terra form it and create a new civilisation there (overpopulation on earth, pollution, etc.). There are plenty of advantages to going into space. The moon and mars contain vast resources. Asteroids also contain far more raw resources than we could ever hope to mine from the earth.

>>3542403
The uncertainty principle dictates that you cannot be entirely certain of a particles position or velocity, which is observable on a subatomic level, but seems to disappear on a macroscopic level. For example, we can document electrons literally being in two places at once, and yet that means there is also a (infinitesimally small) possibility that I am standing on the moon right now. Yet I am not. Wavefunction collapse is a fancy way of saying that somehow all of those probabilities collapse into one agreed upon scenario. Macroscopic manifestations of the uncertainty principle are almost impossible to observe because the chances they will happen are so small. This is where the role of the observer comes in. As I'm guessing you know, the act of observing a particle in a particular place can cement it there (otherwise known as collapsing its wavefunction). This has led some physicists to question (with good reason) the role of the observer in the universe. However, Hawking demonstrated that subatomic particles group together in certain ways that agree with out macroscopic perspective (meaning that they naturally have a higher probability of manifesting themselves that way). As far as I understand, it is not clear what role, if any, our observation has on these probabilities on a macroscopic level, leading me to question the idea of the "observer universe".

>>3542345
Our current form of cosmology sucks and needs to be rewritten. Dark Matter/Dark Energy are simply placeholders for our own ignorance or do you honestly believe matter and energy THAT DO NOT OTHERWISE OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS actually exists?

Claiming we know how the universe will end is idiocy.

>>3542432
>As I'm guessing you know, the act of observing a particle in a particular place can cement it there (otherwise known as collapsing its wavefunction).

I've always hated this. It's a pet peeve of mind. There is no such thing as observation on that scale, only interaction.

>>3542435
I repeat, the future collapse of the universe seems unlikely given what we currently know.

>>3542438
My aim was brevity. Sorry to offend you lol

>>3542432
Yeh, I doubt we will be able to link quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics any time soon. Even string theory is impossible to prove at any time in the foreseeable future. So you are saying that us observing the universe could have some sort of affect on the events that occur in it on a macroscopic level (asteroid collisions etc.)?

>>3542444
Offend? No. Just a pet peeve. It makes it sound all mystical when you say that observing something changes what it does, which carries the implicit connotation "without interference" with some people, especially those who don't know quantum physics.

>>3542447
Quantum mechanics to Theory of Relativity might be a better place to start.

>>3542447
Just the opposite. I'm saying the "observer universe" is taking the concept too far, and is based on biased subjective experience. But there are some people who really do take the concept of the observer universe seriously. And they are real theoretical physicists, so what do I know?

>>3542435
Wild scientific predictions are what humans are good at.

>>3542432
ITT: pop quantum

>>3542456
Yeh it's hard to see how that could be true. One of those things we will just have to wait a long time to find out.

>>3542467
Would you rather I watch reality television?

>>3542478
If it gets you off here, yes.

>>3542491
You would first have to show a better understanding of the subject. Then I would be grateful for the explanation and be on my way. Unfortunately telling me that I'm wrong doesn't make me think you're right.

>>3542285
>choises
mfw there aren't

>>3542476

i doubt our race will live long enough to see these questions answered using science..

>>3542435
No one says it does not "otherwise" "obey the laws of physics".

1: We currently know FOR SURE that we cannot yet claim to know all laws in physics properly.

2: Dark matter and Dark energy is a name given to something that exhibits properties that we ascribe to matter and energy, but which we couldn't yet observe. We could only observe non-dark things that were influenced by it. Regard it as a "placeholder" if you want, you needn't insist that it actually ultimately exactlly is "matter" and "energy" per se, just apparently something with the same effects that we haven't yet observed.

Just popped in to tell you guys that this thread is an interesting read, whether or not the theories you have presented are correct.

Cheers /sci/ and keep it coming c:

>>3542285

What's to disprove, OP?
You're right.

If the universe had no origin, and it's here now, then it HAD to be here forever. If that's the case, it had all the time, ever, to do everything, infinitely many times.

It's easier to look toward the future. As long as it may take, perhaps Earth may be recreated one day. And long long long time after that, perhaps again. And again. And again. And again...

Everything we know about cosmology says that the universe will continue to expand until it reaches maximum entropy. This phenomenon is known as heat death, and scientists are pretty certain that this is how the universe will end.

The "Big Crunch" theory was interesting before it was disproven, but now it's generally accepted that the universe had a beginning and shall have an end. I believe Roger Penrose has a theory stating that the universe could begin again after heat death, but AFAIK this is unproven. To me, the idea of a cyclic universe is fanciful at best.

ok my theory babes.
If that is valid, meaning that there is big bang after big bang etc, then i believe that if energy is collected in one point there is only one way everything can happen. Why? Because everything obeys one rule and one point is the shortest way for the whole energy to clamp down. So everything would happen the same again and again and again. Because there is one rule and all laws come into existence because of it. NOW AMIRITE SCI?

OP:

since we experience free will (wether we actually have it or not), we can make this neverending cycle into something useful only by applying a continuously developing "mass-consciousness" not directly affected by the repetition.

I guess you feel kinda like the cells in your body must feel since they can't know how you experience life. Existance must feel pointless for them.

>>3543860
Perpetual existence does not necessarily imply it is cyclical, or that it exhausts the space of all possibilities. The universe continues existing forever in the heat death scenario too.

Though it would be hard to explain why a big bang would only happen once...