Is the Big Rip basically saying we'll continue as we are now forever? We'll just keep expanding? Also, how much stuff is in the universe to be stretched? And for that matter, what the hell are we stretching into? That's probably something for another thread.

File: 1.03 MB, 200x152, Big_rip[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:43:52 2011 No.3762547 [Reply] [Original]

Is the Big Rip basically saying we'll continue as we are now forever? We'll just keep expanding?
Also, how much stuff is in the universe to be stretched? And for that matter, what the hell are we stretching into? That's probably something for another thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:43:52 2011 No.3762554 ALSO, what is the most agreed-upon ultimate-fate-of-the-universe theory? Is there any consensus at all?

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:47:52 2011 No.3762564

>And for that matter, what the hell are we stretching into?
The universe is a 3 dimensional bubble expanding across a larger 4 dimensional space(?).
It's like a mobius strip with and added sense of depth.

Personally I think the big crunch is the most plausible, seeing how a universe with a repeating pattern gives sapient life like us the most chances of occurring.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:50:52 2011 No.3762575 >>3762564 >seeing how a universe with a repeating pattern gives sapient life like us the most chances of occurring. Why would it being more likely to harbor sapient life make the big crunch more plausible? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sun Sep 18 23:53:52 2011 No.3762589

>>3762547
>And for that matter, what the hell are we stretching into?
You're confused. It doesn't make sense to say "what is the universe stretching into". It is simply expanding. Why does it need something in which to expand? There is no such need.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:54:52 2011 No.3762592

>>3762575
I sort of got the logic backwards, but hear me out:

If the end of our universe was a big rip model, then there's only one instance of existence.
If the universe crunches and then re-expands, then there would be multiply opportunities for a universe to occur where I sit here typing this.

It's not much but there's little to go on in predicting end scenarios.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sun Sep 18 23:55:52 2011 No.3762599

>>3762564
>Personally I think the big crunch is the most plausible, seeing how a universe with a repeating pattern gives sapient life like us the most chances of occurring.
You know that the evidence disagrees with you, right? I mean that the big crunch is not going to happen. We're going to get heat death.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:57:52 2011 No.3762603

>>3762564
>The universe is a 3 dimensional bubble expanding across a larger 4 dimensional space(?).
What is the space then? Does the universe not entail everything that exists?

>>3762589
I guess it's just really hard to visualize. If something is getting bigger, it must have room to get bigger. I guess there aren't really any "walls" for the universe to hit ?

>>3762592
Right, I get that, but you're saying you think the big crunch is most plausible because it makes more opportunities for for life. Why does more opportunities for life = more probable?

>>3762599
Is there anyway to explain in simple terms why the big crunch is a "no"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:59:52 2011 No.3762609 File: 1.02 MB, 320x240, 1314417472331.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I guess there aren't really any "walls" for the universe to hit?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sun Sep 18 23:59:52 2011 No.3762610

>>3762603
>Is there anyway to explain in simple terms why the big crunch is a "no"?
The evidence is that the matter in the universe is expanding. Moreover, the rate at which matter in the universe is expanding is increasing.

(Introduction to modern cosmology) 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:03:52 2011 No.3762620 File: 11 KB, 320x271, 1289460442272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] GUISE.... GUISE! Listen............. just listen What IF..... MULTIVERSE AND STRING THEORY?

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Sep 19 00:06:52 2011 No.3762627 File: 164 KB, 522x337, cordyceps..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3762620 NOT FORGET QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:06:52 2011 No.3762628 >>3762620 RESONANCE CASCADE

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:07:52 2011 No.3762629 >>3762620 ..Dear god.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:08:52 2011 No.3762632

>>3762609
Sorry, I haven't studied this at all or anything.
Most of what I say will most likely be full-on retarded.
>>3762610
I thought, "Couldn't we just be still on the upslope of expansion?" Then I realized you said we're expanding faster, so we were expanding fastest at the beginning of the big bang, and now we should be slowing down our expansion if the big crunch is right? And then stopping and contracting? How long would the universe spend still, in between expanding and contracting if the theory was true?

>>3762620
I know nothing of either of these aside from what the names imply (multiple universes) and what I've heard from people on television giving simple definitions in time limits for news casters (tons of vibrating strings that get tangled or some shit).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:10:52 2011 No.3762645 > Is the Big Rip basically saying we'll continue as we are now forever? We'll just keep expanding? It's saying that the expansion will continue to accelerate, until it's so rapid that even subatomic particles will be torn apart

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Sep 19 00:11:52 2011 No.3762653 File: 203 KB, 445x445, durrr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3762629 ...it just might work...

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Sep 19 00:11:52 2011 No.3762651

>>3762632
>I thought, "Couldn't we just be still on the upslope of expansion?" Then I realized you said we're expanding faster, so we were expanding fastest at the beginning of the big bang, and now we should be slowing down our expansion if the big crunch is right? And then stopping and contracting? How long would the universe spend still, in between expanding and contracting if the theory was true?

We're expanding faster now than we we were 1 billion years ago. The rate of expansion is increasing. The expansion is not slowing down. It's getting faster.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:12:52 2011 No.3762662
File: 2 KB, 307x194, 4dmat10.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3762547
didn't read the thread, but something I found interesting.
http://www.foundalis.com/phy/4Dsphere.htm
>a sphere in 4 dimensions expands infinitely
That always struck me as similar to the Universal Expansion theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:15:52 2011 No.3762680 >>3762645 So we'll be torn apart? Lovely. Is there any hope for a new universe or are we just doomed to the end of existence despite our accomplishments as a species?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:16:52 2011 No.3762683 >>3762680 OP here. I think whatever the correct theory is, I can safely say that we're doomed. That's okay though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:17:52 2011 No.3762690 What exists after the universe is destroyed?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:18:52 2011 No.3762697 >>3762690 It will never be "destroyed". Fucking cold.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:19:52 2011 No.3762699 >>3762683 >>3762680 I mean I always felt consoled by the fact that eventually mankind would be godlike from our perspective. Happiness for everyone. Even if I'm dead. But this just sucks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:20:52 2011 No.3762707 >>3762699 Honestly I'm just happy to be alive during this whole mystery.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:26:52 2011 No.3762737 Given how much theory and how little hard evidence we have for all of this, there's a very good chance we're completely off the mark. People in 1000 years will likely laugh at what we think now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:33:52 2011 No.3762766 Neil DeGrasse Tyson said the universe's edge is expanding into a higher dimension.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:35:52 2011 No.3762777

>Is the Big Rip basically saying we'll continue as we are now forever?
The big rip is an event that will occur if we continue to expand at an increasing rate.
>We'll just keep expanding?
I'll assume "we'll" refers to the universe. If so, yes.
>Also, how much stuff is in the universe to be stretched.
Are you asking the total amount of matter in the universe?
>what the hell are we stretching into?
There is no current answer for this. The most reasonable answer is the universe is expanding into nothing. The way this expanding is happening depends on if the universe is a "sphere" or is "flat". If it is a "sphere" the sphere is just getting bigger. Imagine the Earth just getting bigger and bigger. It is much more complicated than this and needs a lot more explaining to understand it at all.
>most agreed-upon ultimate-fate-of-the-universe theory?
I'll assume your asking what is the most logical theory as of today. That would be the universe is going to end up being extremely cold.

The Big Rip is a theory at this point. I don't think there is any way of knowing with what we have available today, if the expansion of the universe effects sub atomic particles. Once more is known about dark matter, an answer will probably be known.

My current theory (almost certainly wrong) on everything. Big Rip will not happen. Universe will continue to expand rapidly. Unless some intelligent 'life-forms' (could be machines or anything for that matter) have some solution, the universe will end up cold and spread apart, but with no big rip.

If anyone knows anything I don't know, I would be glad to hear more. If you have any more questions I'll try and answer them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:35:52 2011 No.3762779 >>3762766 that's mad retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:52:52 2011 No.3762855 >>3762610 OP here. This video is seriously blowing my mind like nothing ever has before.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 00:57:52 2011 No.3762883 >>3762855 fuuuuck i need to be a cosmologist

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:04:52 2011 No.3762936 >>3762564 but I thought the universe was expanding exponentially, correct me if I'm wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:08:52 2011 No.3762956 >>3762779 Not if the expansion of the universe is far beyond what we can actually comprehend.

J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 01:12:52 2011 No.3762972

Hey, science bros, I have a question for you.

If the Big Crunch were to happen, and if we were somehow still alive and rocking imminently before the universe were to collapse into itself - would there be nothing we can do to escape it?

Presuming, we're a space faring race at that juncture, would we be able to "fly" away from the singularity?

I mean, like fly outside the limits of the universe, into the empty void outside of it - to escape destruction?

Or would it be more like, the walls of the universe are closing in on you, and there's nothing you can do about it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:13:52 2011 No.3762980 >>3762972 Nope. Yep.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:17:52 2011 No.3762995 >>3762980 To elaborate a bit on what he said. The universe going into singularity would mean it is 'shrinking' faster than the speed of light (not accounting for time dilation). No matter how fast you move, it is pulling you back faster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:18:52 2011 No.3763008 >>3762680 human existance is relative to a fraction of a blink of an eye when compared to the timeline of the universe. humans will be long gone by the time the universe tears itself apart

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:21:52 2011 No.3763018

Current most likely candidate for shape of the universe:
Flat, 3-dimensional space with 1 dimension of time, expanding forever. Not a moebius strip, although that possibility isn't ruled out 100% yet.

As for what it's expanding "into".. it isn't. Space itself is expanding. This is a difficult concept to understand intuitively at first but it's very important to get the distinction (and the halfassed balloon/raisin bread analogies people make don't really help).

Imagine it like this: suppose you're holding a thread between your hands, just far enough apart so that the thread is taut. Then, suddenly, the thread is longer, and it hangs down, so you pull your hands out farther to make it taut again. Your hands represent distant galactic clusters, and the thread represents space itself. Everywhere there's space, more space is coming into being.

You yourself aren't stretching out though, because the forces of gravity and the nuclear forces keep everything held together on the scale of people, planets, solar systems, galaxies. Even some galaxies within a cluster that are close enough together to have a strong gravitational pull on each other are currently overcoming the expansive force of dark energy, but clusters that are further away all have the appearance of moving away from each other due to the expansion of space.

One other interesting facet of this that I'm not completely sure on yet but sounds interesting: I've heard it said that the redshift we perceive as those distant galaxies move away from us is not caused by the galaxies actually "moving" (i.e. the expanding space isn't actually "pushing" them away), but rather the wavelength of the light they emit lengthening due to the expansive nature of space in the interval it takes to get to us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:24:52 2011 No.3763036 hier marschiert der nationale widerstand! hier marschiert der nationale widerstand! hier marschiert der nationale widerstand!

J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 01:32:52 2011 No.3763085

So, would the final singularity that envelopes the whole universe be equal in size to the universe itself?

I would presume it would be orders of magnitude larger than a "supermassive" black hole, but how big would it be really?

Finally, what would happen to space immediately where the singularity was after it evaporated due to hawking radiation?

I find it incomprehensible to believe that all the matter in the universe would be condensed into a single point and then just vanish.

Perhaps, this is diving into science fiction territory, but perhaps, just perhaps, do you guys think that the end of the aforementioned singularity would bring life to a new universe?

A Big Crunch ending into a new Big Bang?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:35:52 2011 No.3763101 >>3763085 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 01:39:52 2011 No.3763117 File: 359 KB, 1067x853, 217.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3763101 Wow, I just independently invented a theory. I don't know how to feel about this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 01:40:52 2011 No.3763123 >>3763117 Too bad it's wrong.

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 01:43:52 2011 No.3763137 >>3763123 Chut up. Since we in all likelihood, live in a multiverse, that Big Bounce theory is probably happening in another verse as we speak right now. It's fun to to speculate.. ><

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:00:52 2011 No.3763203

>>3763085
>So, would the final singularity that envelopes the whole universe be equal in size to the universe itself?
Yes.
>how big would it be really?
Some say it is a 1d point.
>what would happen to space immediately where the singularity was after it evaporated due to hawking radiation?
The radiation would be included in the singularity.
>I find it incomprehensible to believe that all the matter in the universe would be condensed into a single point and then just vanish.
Singularity was the 'start' of the big bang. It probably wouldn't vanish, instead it would create another big bang, meaning new universe. Just realized that's the next thing you were going to say. We don't live in a universe like that though.

>>3763137
>in all likelihood, live in a multiverse
There is a chance, but it is not "in all likelihood". It is actually leaning more towards unlikely.
>happening in another verse as we speak right now
First, we need to assume that we live in a multiverse. I'm going to assume you are talking about the common theory of a universe for every possible outcome. The big bounce might not be a possible outcome.

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 02:09:52 2011 No.3763226 >>3763203 I want to believe in a multiverse. I want to believe there's a universe where I'm with "her". ;_;

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:10:52 2011 No.3763231 >>3763226 Hey you faggot you don't believe what you want to believe you believe what's fucking right. You're a dick-head.

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 02:12:52 2011 No.3763237 >>3763231 you're a meanie beanie ;_;

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:13:52 2011 No.3763240 >>3763237 I'd rather be mean than be a retard.

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 02:16:52 2011 No.3763246 >>3763240 I'm confusion. If I were retarded, wouldn't that mean I was born that way? You can't choose to be retarded any more than you can choose to be gay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:16:52 2011 No.3763250 >>3763246 Shut up retard.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:19:52 2011 No.3763259

How's this for 'fun' speculation:

Our universe will end in heat death, but that doesn't rule out prior universes that resurrected in big bounces, with the laws of physics slightly different each time until we arrived in our present universe, where a big crunch will no longer happen. We could be the last universe ever.

>>	J Meister !1337rL6OmQ Mon Sep 19 02:26:52 2011 No.3763284 File: 23 KB, 409x409, 1315793008381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's all fun and games until you realize that life is not all fun and games.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:26:52 2011 No.3763285 >>3763284 God I fucking hate you. I hope you die soon.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:27:52 2011 No.3763290

>>3763226
Sadly, according to the most used mutliverse theory, I can never be with my waifu.

>>3763259
Good 'speculation' to troll people. As of everything we know today, it is possible. There is 0 evidence to believe it, but it can't be disproven as of yet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:28:52 2011 No.3763291 mai multiverse waifu only opportunity I'd ever get to really say that

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:31:52 2011 No.3763300

>>3763259
Very intriguing...

Since thermodynamics govern everything in some miniscule way anyway, who's to say that the multiverses currently doing a Big Bounce lose a little (I mean that in the most relative way possible) energy due to heat loss each time?

Thus, the energy present to create the next Big Bounce would be that much smaller, making universes fizzle out of dynamism as they give their energy to a new universe (which will also eventually fizzle out).

Eventually, a single universe would remain (perhaps ours), until it succumbs to heat death as well.

.....Thermodynamics are harsh, man.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 02:39:52 2011 No.3763314

>>3763284
Actually it's not fun and games until you realize it's not fun and games and develop a mental state capable of solving problems and allowing for fun and games, unless you're rich, but then you'll be a retarded spoiled brat until you realize it's not fun and games.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 04:05:52 2011 No.3763588 >>3762662 what a great read, i couldn't get through the letter at the end though because I haven't exactly taken calculus yet...

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math