The end of the universe into nothingness?

[John J. Bannan]

I have heard that the universe will end in a Big Freeze. That all matter will diffuse and literally pop out of existence. If this is true, then isn't this also true of space? If space has energy, won't that energy also pop out of existence? And if that is true, then doesn't that mean that at some point in the very distant future, space will no longer exist? And if that is true, isn't the lack of even space nothingness itself? And if that is true, then doesn't that mean that nothingness exists? And if that is true, isn't it logical to asume that the Big Bang came out of such nothingness?

"But that's not the end, according to University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams. An expert on the fate of the cosmos and co-author with Greg Laughlin of The Five Ages of the Universe (Touchstone Books; 2000), Adams predicts that all this dead matter will eventually collapse into black holes. By the time the universe is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old, the black holes themselves will disintegrate into stray particles, which will bind loosely to form individual "atoms" larger than the size of today's universe. Eventually, even these will decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void. And that will be that—unless, of course, whatever inconceivable event that launched the original Big Bang should recur, and the ultimate free lunch is served once more." http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

 

[andbna]

I have heard that the universe will end in a Big Freeze. That all matter will diffuse and literally pop out of existence.

Never heard of that (source please.) Perhaps you mean continuous expansion; the 'end' result being a universe of infinite duration, but, at some point in the future, having so little density as there to be only a negligable amount of particle interactions, and maximum entropy (heat death) making it a pretty bleak place?

In that case, no, nothing is popping out of existance and your slippery slope is moot.
-Andrew

 

[blobrana]

No, it will just become empty (ish).
Spacetime will still exist, but time and space (dimensions) may become blurred and interchangeable.
According to recent theory proposed by Roger Penrose from that emptiness/nothingness will spring a new separate universe.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Never heard of that (source please.) Perhaps you mean continuous expansion; the 'end' result being a universe of infinite duration, but, at some point in the future, having so little density as there to be only a negligable amount of particle interactions, and maximum entropy (heat death) making it a pretty bleak place?

In that case, no, nothing is popping out of existance and your slippery slope is moot.
-Andrew

Note that the above mentioned article says an "infinite void", i.e. all energy and space gone.

 

[Reiku]

No, it will just become empty (ish).
Spacetime will still exist, but time and space (dimensions) may become blurred and interchangeable.
According to recent theory proposed by Roger Penrose from that emptiness/nothingness will spring a new separate universe.

Yes, just another way of looking at our universe quantum leaping into a new state.

 

[John J. Bannan]

No, it will just become empty (ish).
Spacetime will still exist, but time and space (dimensions) may become blurred and interchangeable.
According to recent theory proposed by Roger Penrose from that emptiness/nothingness will spring a new separate universe.

Emptyish is not the same as "infinitely large void" - is it? A void doesn't have any energy in it.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Never heard of that (source please.) Perhaps you mean continuous expansion; the 'end' result being a universe of infinite duration, but, at some point in the future, having so little density as there to be only a negligable amount of particle interactions, and maximum entropy (heat death) making it a pretty bleak place?

In that case, no, nothing is popping out of existance and your slippery slope is moot.
-Andrew

Not quite. Nothingness is not the same as empty space. Empty space has energy. Nothingness does not have even empty space.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Yes, just another way of looking at our universe quantum leaping into a new state.

Doesn't this show that nothingness itself exists?

 

[blobrana]

At a certain point each and every photon in the universe will become isolated in its own visible universe.
Essentially the universe will be empty.

 

[John J. Bannan]

At a certain point each and every photon in the universe will become isolated in its own visible universe.
Essentially the universe will be empty.

Or will the photons decay into nothing? Your understanding of the Big Freeze is not the same as mine. Where are you getting yours?

 

[blobrana]

The photons is were the buck stops.
But interestingly that is perhaps when space time loses its meaning.

 

[andbna]

Note that the above mentioned article says an "infinite void", i.e. all energy and space gone.

This is a time magazine you quote from, chances are the wording is not spot on as far as scientific terminology goes.

Anyway, it's not news that the Big Freeze (to continue with your terminology, which appears to be correct,) is favoured over the big crunch at this point (and with it went the majority of favour for the cyclical universe theory.)

Anyway, all the article merely states is that it is thought that the universe will continue to expand; and eventualy become so dense that it can be thought of as just one big void.
Also keep in mind that there are many places in space today which are called voids; they do not contain very much matter when compared to other areas, but nonetheless there is some presant. That is; there's no supporting evidence in the article that would allow us to conclude that it means a true void. (Basicaly your saying that because someone said "space is a vacuum" the plantes must not exist.)

EDIT: Blob mentioned each photon having it's own visible universe, I assume your summarizing that they become far eanough apart that the expansion between even the closest pair is faster than c (and hence, all particles would remain outside each other's event horizons; unable to view them ever again)?

-Andrew

 

[Reiku]

Doesn't this show that nothingness itself exists?

Logic would suggest, that at Big Bang, there was everything ever needed. If i focus on a universe with an end point, ''a collapse where things run backwards,'' then everything that had meaning would return to this point. And that point may even have more meaning, so it's really hard to say. There are so many different models see.

 

[Vkothii]

How about the "big rip", which is where, instead of the universe recollapsing (because it's closed), or expanding indefinitely (because it's open), it tears itself apart, because of dark energy?

 

[Reiku]

It would rip and continue to tear everything out of existence, which you might think would take a while, but as soon as that rip appeared, it would wipe out all of spacetime, and everything in it. So, who knows... It seems like a Big Rip will happen.

 

[draqon]

there is always "hope" that if it will happen and all will be nothingness...that a time will come and the universe will exist

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Correct...the end is the same as the beginning..Nothing at all. All there is that is has a value, and when the sum of that value is added up, it equals zero. Nothing itself is the foundation of everything there is, ever was, or ever will be.

 

[CptBork]

The Big Rip doesn't mean everything will just disappear, it means you wouldn't be able to detect anything, so it would seem that way. Once it happens, if it ever does, there's no reversing either, it's not like it would lead to a rebirth.

 

[Enmos]

It doesn't matter whether the universe is as big as an orange or infinitely larger, its mass will always stay the same.

 

[John J. Bannan]

The Big Rip doesn't mean everything will just disappear, it means you wouldn't be able to detect anything, so it would seem that way. Once it happens, if it ever does, there's no reversing either, it's not like it would lead to a rebirth.

So, do you see my point now? If the universe eventually turns into nothingness in the Big Freeze or Big Rip, then nothingness exists, no? Of course, you could argue that there would still be something there however weak and small, but I'm not sure that's correct, and besides, wouldn't the universe be approaching nothingness in any case? Sort of like, an infinitely small number being equal to zero simply because it approaches zero.