The End of Time is Nigh (in a Cosmic Sense, Anyhow)

wat

wat

The only one that can truely tell you how something works and what it's purpose is is the one who created it. Science ONLY makes sense because our Universe is governed by laws and consistency. Otherwise, like the article rightly states, either there are NO laws, or the laws exist because they exist... How philosophically absurd does that sound. I'd rather trust is something rather then nothing. Seems more logical.

To sum up what this article says is this guys theory is based on the fact that he says it is going to end because it has to for physics to be true. lol that cracks my shat up....basically saying physics is BS....if the universe never ends the laws of physics are all BS and everything that works the way it works here just works cuz it does. Accept it and good luck.

I'm curious how they managed to sever the connection between time and space, simply because time itself, is merely a measurement of how quickly a photon travels unhindered through a particular unit of space.

In other words, as long as there is space, there will be time. The only place where time does not exist, space does not exist. The center of a black hole breaks physics, simply because gravity becomes infinite within a quantum singularity, and bends space time so much, that the distance between any fixed point, and the singularity, is infinite. Meaning, light falling into the center of a black hole would never reach the center.

This points out two things, as Einstein so cleverly deduced, that time itself is only quantifiable as a measure of how fast light moves unhindered through space, and that gravity bends space, and since space and time are inherently the same thing, more space means more time. The reason for this, is that gravity itself pulls on the fabric of space, lengthening the distance between any number of points, and as such, this distance will create more terrain that light must traverse in order to reach its destination, thus slowing down time.

So, I would like an explanation, of how exactly these physicists seem to think that they have managed to not only prove Einstein wrong, but to prove all of modern physics wrong.

However, I would like to point out what I think they are trying to say, and the horrible paraphrasing has completely managed to misunderstand:

As the universe expands, space doubles. Since space is self-replicating, every time space doubles, there is twice as much space to double, thus creating an exponential expansion. At some point, the universe may expand (if indeed, cosmic inflation is a property of space itself, and dark energy is not a byproduct of some process) to the point that time is simply irrelevant, because this continued process will lead to the breaking of gravitational bonds, ripping apart every particle in the universe, and sequestering it with infinitely expanding distance.

This process however, in order for space to overpower gravity, would take another 50 billion years at the currently observed acceleration of the universe. At some point, time becomes irrelevant, because the rate at which space expands overcomes the speed of light itself, meaning, light itself cannot even travel from one point to another, because space will eternally expand the distance between the light and all points, thereby making all visible matter in the universe completely invisible.

Time becomes irrelevant, but only because the passage of time technically speaking, becomes negative, because light is moving, but space is forcing into a net loss of distance.

And to anybody who is going to call "farce", and try to quote relativity to claim that it can't happen, remember that the speed of light speed limit only applies to objects that have mass. Meaning, if a particle has zero mass (SPACE), it is completely capable of surpassing the speed of light, and since space itself is not moving when it expands, it is not limited by this cosmic speed limit. The reason for this, is because objects become "more massive" when they move faster, bending space-time more and more, thus "slowing down" the object, because gravity expands time. It's all pretty elegant.)

uh. um. ok.

Just another theory, 99.999% of which are totally wrong.

May it be wrong or not, it's still mind-bending and makes for some good reading.

1. Hypothesis, not theory.

2. Click the "their math" link if you haven't. It's kinda funny.

Computing of the pi number is so far an infinite process. Can the pi number end also? Is the pi number out of this universe?
It is pretty simple. Everything that is round contains pi and by the virtues of pi are also infinite .

How much pot do you have to smoke to get to a 50/50 guess?

PLEAAASSSEE!!!

This is really the reason we need to be careful about legalizing pot, man! Or should I say dudes?

And to think my taxes paid for this. Thanks Berkley. Good job as always. Must be nothing to protest today.

Expansion of the Universe is accelerating does not mean it will expand forever.
(For example if you see a car is accelerating, would you conclude it will accelerate forever?)

Because each new unit volume of space-time must have a constant amount of vacuum (zero-point) energy. So the expansion requires an energy source to continue. Apparently that source is what is called Dark Energy. And since the total amount of Dark Energy in the Universe is not infinite, then the expansion has to stop some day completely. (After that gravity would start pulling the Universe back.)

We already have a Universe that should not exist but does exist. Maybe if they could explain existence they could then explain how it will not exist.

Deron.

Layman's logic tells the average person that these scientist must be wrong, but they would not make such a bold statement if they didn't have the data to back it up.

My issue is not with their conclusion, but rather the limited information used to come to this conclusion. There are so many things that are not understood, misunderstood, and yet to be discovered that makes it difficult for me to accept any theory about the end of the universe as anything more than a novel concept.

Nevertheless, I can appreciate the attempt and the number crunching that went into their theory. It maybe be that they are correct after all, or that they just have one or two details that are missing.

As they say, "Only time will tell."

Nothing like a theory that no one can prove because they won't be around when it happens.

It is my theory that I will live forever if I don't you can execute me.

@fb36

Your statement that the universe will not accellerate forever mirror's Einstein's thoughts on the matter, which led him to his greatest mistake, and ended his career as a progressive scientist.

If we apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we must agree on one of two things, Dark Energy cannot be exponentially increasing (which contradicts observations), or that Dark Energy is simply coming from outside the borders of this universe.

This is problematic, because the latter cannot be tested against.

Second, Dark Energy itself is a self-repulsive property, and you are trying to quantify it as a particle in space with a volume. It does not have a determined volume, light is the only yardstick of the universe.

To attempt to quantify Dark Energy as a point particle will always lead you to the wrong conclusions about the nature of the universe.

I may be missing something, but I don't understand what leads to the conclusion that space-time istelf is expanding in the first place. I understand that everything we can observe is moving/accelerating away from everything else. But why does this lead to space-time expanding, and not just matter accelerating through space-time.

Are we assuming space-time is currently finite and does not yet exist outside the reaches of are visually observable universe, and therefore any expansion of matter is essentially expanding space-time itself? Since everything outside our observable section of space-time is completely unknown, can we just as reasonably assume space-time already exists everywhere and is infinite? If space-time is infinite, then I would assume this expansion of our universe is simply an expansion of objects through space and not space itself.

Since we don't even know what is causing the expansion of our universe (Dark Energy?), I don't understand how we can assume it is the medium expanding and not the objects expanding through the medium?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
The holographic principle (Our Universe as a hologram)is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerardus 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind.

Gravity wave detectors may soon confirm this theory by detecting the necessarily scaled up Planck length as noise within the signal. Since the volume of the spherical universe is much bigger than its outer surface, how could this be true? Hogan realized that in order to have the same number of bits inside the universe as on the boundary, the world inside must be made up of grains bigger than the Planck length. "Or, to put it another way, a holographic universe is blurry," says Hogan.

So the end may come as everything just goes out of focus.

I think it's obvious that George Bush is to blame for this.