- #1
Delong
- 400
- 17
I heard that eventually the universe will end in heat death where everything becomes cold and lifeless and immotile. Is this true and is it inescapable? What can we perhaps do about it?
Delong said:I heard that eventually the universe will end in heat death where everything becomes cold and lifeless and immotile. Is this true and is it inescapable? What can we perhaps do about it?
Cosmo Novice said:If DE (Dark Energy) is not sufficiently strong to overcome the acceleration forces of expansion,
I'm pretty sure that depends on the global geometry of the universe. If the universe is closed, and all the dark energy simply went away, then we would be left with a closed matter dominated universe and a big crunch would be inevitable.phinds said:(I THINK, but am not sure, that I have read that at this point, even if DE went away, gravity would not longer be able to reverse the expansion, so the "big crunch" is going to require a fundamental change in SOMETHING.
phinds said:You've contradicted yourself with the statement above. DE is not something that is going to overcome the acceleration, DE CAUSES the acceleration.
bapowell said:I'm pretty sure that depends on the global geometry of the universe. If the universe is closed, and all the dark energy simply went away, then we would be left with a closed matter dominated universe and a big crunch would be inevitable.
He just pointed out a physical scenario under which we might get a big crunch without any sort of fundamental change in gravity. It does require that the dark energy changes its behavior dramatically in the future, but other than that no change is necessary.phinds said:Could be I have a fundamental misunderstanding, but if I have it right, your logic is circular. Because spacetime is affected by gravity, it IS gravity that determines whether or not the U is open or closed (or flat) and if that's the case then your argument is circular. I'm new to all this and as I said, I recognize that I may have that wrong.
Delong said:I heard that eventually the universe will end in heat death where everything becomes cold and lifeless and immotile. Is this true and is it inescapable? What can we perhaps do about it?
Just bear in mind that for this to happen, the dark energy would have to radically change its behavior. The most likely situation is that it will continue acting as it has up to now, which means continued acceleration indefinitely. This, in turn, means a heat death.Sup_Principia said:Whenever it is mentioned that Gravity halts the expansion of the universe, this is referring to the fact the "Dark Energy”, which causes Space-time expansion, becomes diluted, and loses its grip.
Chalnoth said:Just bear in mind that for this to happen, the dark energy would have to radically change its behavior. The most likely situation is that it will continue acting as it has up to now, which means continued acceleration indefinitely. This, in turn, means a heat death.
Delong said:... heat death ... Is this true and is it inescapable? What can we perhaps do about it?
Delong said:Darn...
that really sucks.
Sup_Principia said:What this model would suggest is that there is another Force and Energy out there that counter acts the "Dark Energy" over long distances. I propose that this energy is called the "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy of space-time. The "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy would cause the expanding "Dark Energy" to become diluted, and loses its grip, and finally becomes weak over great distances.
Once again, this is total speculation, however, there is some evidence for the above, and is meant for discussion.
Sup_Principia said:What really sucks?
If it makes you feel better, it probably won't happen before you die of old age.Delong said:That heat death is most probably inevitable.
bcrowell said:Please reread the forum's rules (which you have agreed to when you joined) on overly speculative posts.
Hurkyl said:If it makes you feel better, it probably won't happen before you die of old age.
Yes, but again, that requires a model radically different than the simplest model that fits observation.Sup_Principia said:So the answer is that a "Big Bounce" or an "Oscillatory Universe" model allows us to escape the inescapable "Heat Death"
This is a model that is radically different from the simplest one that fits observation, and involves dark energy that behaves radically different in the future than it has up to now.Sup_Principia said:This is speculation only based on the (OP)'s question:
However, the "Dark Energy" would not have to, as you put it, radically change its behavior. The "Dark Energy" is doing what it is suppose to do, expand Space-time in the presence of matter. And Inertial Mass Gravity is doing what it is suppose to do. Cause Inertial Matter/Mass to clump together.
What this model would suggest is that there is another Force and Energy out there that counter acts the "Dark Energy" over long distances. I propose that this energy is called the "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy of space-time. The "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy would cause the expanding "Dark Energy" to become diluted, and loses its grip, and finally becomes weak over great distances.
Once again, this is total speculation, however, there is some evidence for the above, and is meant for discussion.
Why does that suck? If the dark energy is truly a cosmological constant, then the universe will approach a small but non-zero temperature in the far future. This non-zero temperature means that there will be quantum fluctuations that will produce new regions of space-time periodically within our own. A heat death universe is not the end except in the sense that it is the end of our universe. A recollapse scenario would just bring about the end of our universe more rapidly.Delong said:That heat death is most probably inevitable.
Sup_Principia said:I knew that "You" personally were coming after me! I know your type! You were watching everyone of my post, just waiting for an opportunity to throw some kind of a rock. That is why I continued to refer back to the original post (OP)'s question. Which could not be answered without speculation.
However, here is some evidence for a peer reviewed article on the subject. And this takes the "Big Bounce" model out of complete speculation; and therefore no forum rule is violated. I have read all of the rules for posting on this forum, and do completely comply.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...nce-cosmos-makes-inflation-a-sure-thing.html"
bcrowell said:I don't see any correlation between the "Heat Radiation Gravitation" material in your #14 and the New Scientist article you linked to. The New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed journal. The OP can be discussed without violating PF's rules on overly speculative posts.
-Ben
Chalnoth said:Why does that suck? If the dark energy is truly a cosmological constant, then the universe will approach a small but non-zero temperature in the far future. This non-zero temperature means that there will be quantum fluctuations that will produce new regions of space-time periodically within our own. A heat death universe is not the end except in the sense that it is the end of our universe. A recollapse scenario would just bring about the end of our universe more rapidly.
Sup_Principia said:You are right the article does not mention the term "Heat Radiation Gravitation" The article mentions "Superinflation", which in my opinion gives a better interpretion of the term "Superinflation."
bcrowell said:The article has nothing to do with the speculative material in your #14.
Only in the sense of proposing that the dark energy truly is a cosmological constant. But then that's not so much speculative as it is the simplest explanation that fits the data. Anyway, here's a paper that went into this in a fair amount of detail:Sup_Principia said:This appears highly speculative.
Chalnoth said:Only in the sense of proposing that the dark energy truly is a cosmological constant. But then that's not so much speculative as it is the simplest explanation that fits the data. Anyway, here's a paper that went into this in a fair amount of detail:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0410270
This is equivocation. The cosmological constant is a very specific parameter in General Relativity. The speed of light is a different constant with very different implications.Sup_Principia said:Chalnoth, you mention that the dark energy truly is a cosmological constant. The speed of light in a vacuum is a cosmological constant.
I'm not so sure going into a discussion of the mathematics involved here would be that good for this thread. But suffice it to say that the fact that the cosmological constant is a constant is precisely what makes it cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.Sup_Principia said:Are you stating that the Dark Energy has the same value throughout the universe? If this is true where is this found in litererature??
And what is the math that describes this dark energy cosmological constant?
Sup_Principia said:Since you are making it sound like you understand the "SuperInflation" concept as described in the article. Then explain what you think the article means by "SuperInflation" in regards to the "Big Bounce" theory; which would act in contradiction to a "Heat Death" model of the universe; which is based on the original post (OP)'s question??
Answering this question is what is called, engaging in physics!
I would also like to add that this analogy is expected to hold no matter what level of technology our species eventually reaches.Cosmo Novice said:With regards to the OP "what can we do about it":
I think the unltimate fate of the U, whether Big Rip, Oscilatory or a heat death, is completely beyond our realm of influence. It is like asking what an Ant can do to stop the Earth moving round the Sun - a crude analogy but meant to emphasize the totally limited influence we have on an entire Universes evolutionary path.
Chalnoth said:I would also like to add that this analogy is expected to hold no matter what level of technology our species eventually reaches.
The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Freeze, is a theoretical concept in which the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy, where all energy is evenly distributed and no further work can be done. This would result in the end of all life and the inability for any new stars or galaxies to form.
No, the heat death of the universe is a theoretical concept based on the second law of thermodynamics. While there is strong evidence to support this idea, it is not yet proven and is still a subject of ongoing scientific research and debate.
Based on current theories and calculations, the heat death of the universe is estimated to occur in about 10^100 years, which is an incredibly long time in the future. However, it is important to note that this is just an estimation and it could happen sooner or later depending on various factors.
It is highly unlikely that humans or any other forms of life will exist when the heat death of the universe occurs. As the universe continues to expand and cool, it will become increasingly inhospitable for life to exist. However, it is impossible to predict the exact timeline of human existence and the heat death of the universe, so this is just a speculation.
At this point in time, there is no known way to prevent the heat death of the universe. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that entropy will always increase, leading to the eventual heat death of the universe. However, as our understanding of the universe continues to evolve, it is possible that new theories or technologies may arise that could potentially delay or even prevent the heat death of the universe.