The end of the universe into nothingness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enmos said:
It doesn't matter whether the universe is as big as an orange or infinitely larger, its mass will always stay the same.
Click to expand...

No, I thought the mass actually decays into smaller and smaller parts. And apparently, it would decay even into empty space itself, which would eventually disappear. How is this spread out state really any different than nothingness itself?
 
John J. Bannan said:
No, I thought the mass actually decays into smaller and smaller parts. And apparently, it would decay even into empty space itself, which would eventually disappear. How is this spread out state really any different than nothingness itself?
Click to expand...

The universe is by definition a closed system.
I admit the mass may change because energy doesn't weigh anything.
But the totality of energy in the universe will always be the same.
 
Enmos said:
The universe is by definition a closed system.
I admit the mass may change because energy doesn't weigh anything.
But the totality of energy in the universe will always be the same.
Click to expand...

Fine. But isn't the universe heading infinitely toward a state of nothingness?
 
blobrana said:
According to some cyclic models those `End` conditions are similar to what our universe sprang from.
All the metrics would be effectively be reset, allowing some sort of random quantum process to bud off a new universe.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1984044.htm
Click to expand...

Very interesting article. I did not know of Roger Penrose and his ideas. But, they seem very similar to what I've been saying - take that BenTheMan!
 
Enmos said:
You just said "fine".. which means you agree that the universe will never be nothing.
Click to expand...

No. If the universe expands infinitely toward a state of nothingness, than you can say it is equal to nothingness by analogy to an interval of smaller and smaller fractions converging on zero and so being equal to zero. Come on, what really is the difference between nothingness and an infinitely expanding universe whose energy becomes less and less dense? Working backwards, you could say that the Big Bang was nothingness compressed into a single point. Hence, somethingness and nothingness are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Hum,
perhaps it is better to say that `the universe expands infinitely toward a state of empty smooth dimensions.`?
 
John J. Bannan said:
If space has energy, won't that energy also pop out of existence?
Click to expand...

the energy (matter) in space might disappear (come to equilibrium), but that doesn't mean that space disappears. space can't disappear because space is nothingness. nothingness can't disappear.

tell me, what's the difference between an universe that is only space, or a universe that is only nothingness?
 
Yorda said:
the energy (matter) in space might disappear (come to equilibrium), but that doesn't mean that space disappears. space can't disappear because space is nothingness. nothingness can't disappear.

tell me, what's the difference between an universe that is only space, or a universe that is only nothingness?
Click to expand...

Well, space does have energy in it and is actually something, because space and matter do interact. Matter creates gravity which is warped space. If space can warp due to matter, than there must be a connection between matter and space. This means, to me at least, that space and matter are really made of the same thing.

I think all you physicists out there ought to be studying the Big Freeze. If the Big Freeze is the ultimate unraveling of the Big Bang, then understanding what the Big Freeze is made of will tell you what all matter is made of. The Big Freeze is an incredibly important discovery, the implications of which cannot be overstated.
 
Last edited:
blobrana said:
Hum,
perhaps it is better to say that `the universe expands infinitely toward a state of empty smooth dimensions.`?
Click to expand...

Isn't the Big Freeze the ultimate unraveling of the Big Bang? Therefore, isn't the Big Freeze going to tell us what the Big Bang is made of? If you say the Big Freeze eventually results in empty smooth dimensions, then wouldn't that mean that matter is just crumpled up dimensions? So, what's dimensions made of? I've asked this question before and been told that dimension is just degrees of freedom and is a concept - not a physical reality. If that's true, then how can the Big Freeze result in empty smooth dimensions, if dimensions themselves are just a concept? I personally disagree that dimensions are just a concept. I think dimensions are real, and I tend to agree with your idea that the Big Freeze ends with empty smooth dimensions. However, I really don't see much of a difference between empty smooth dimensions and nothingness itself. To me, it's describing the same thing. However, I have been careful to note that I thought the universe was comprised of multiple nothingnesses. Multiple nothingnesses can be equated with the idea of dimensions, which is also plural. I really don't think you and I are in disagreement.
Oh, and thanks for the cite to Roger Penrose. I had no idea there were physicists who actually were proposing a similar idea to my own.
 
Indeed.

John J. Bannan said:
Why is that better than "nothingness"?
Click to expand...

As you realise, the word `nothingness` is loaded with many preconceived notions to different people. In reality `nothingness` is not `The Void`, there is still the (albeit old fashioned) `fabric` of space-time. And space-time itself maybe composed of the interactions of tiny membranes that we could for simplicity collectively call `The Bulk`...
 
blobrana said:
Indeed.



As you realise, the word `nothingness` is loaded with many preconceived notions to different people. In reality `nothingness` is not `The Void`, there is still the (albeit old fashioned) `fabric` of space-time. And space-time itself maybe composed of the interactions of tiny membranes that we could for simplicity collectively call `The Bulk`...
Click to expand...

Fine, but these tiny membranes would still be made of dimension, no? And all I mean by multiple nothingnesses is dimensions. My idea is that nothingness exists. By the very fact that nothingness exists, its existence creates a boundary against other nothingnesses, i.e. multiple nothingnesses. These boundaries are what create dimensions. After all, the word "dimension" assumes the existence of another dimension. You need at least two dimensions to even know a dimension is there, don't you? So nothingness can be thought of as a single dimension. But as you can't have just a single dimension, you must have multiple dimensions. So, as you can't just have a single nothingness, you must have multiple nothingnesses. The interaction of dimensions is what creates matter. So, the interaction of multiple nothingnesses creates matter. But the big benefit of naming it nothingness, and not dimension, is that I can argue that nothingness does not require a causal explanation for its existence.
 
Yorda said:
there's no evidence that gravity would be 'warped space'. we don't think that magnetism warps space, so why would gravity do it?

warped space? more like warped matter (ether).
Click to expand...

Einstein proposed that matter warps space. He didn't know how, but that was the basic assumption of General Relativity. So to say there is no proof is incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top