The end of the universe into nothingness?

[John J. Bannan]

Even so called "nothing" is actually something.

Yes, multiple nothings.

 

[cosmictraveler]

But atoms and other particles make up "nothing" they have found. So that is why I say what I do.

 

[blobrana]

Fine, but these tiny membranes would still be made of dimension, no?

Hum,
i suspect the dimensions are a product of those tiny membranes.
So while the cyclic universe could normally be viewed as

0 = (-1 + 1) --> 0 ---> (-1 + 1) ---> 0 ----> etc, etc....

It is really, The Bulk --->The Bulk -->The Bulk --> etc, etc...

 

[John J. Bannan]

But atoms and other particles make up "nothing" they have found. So that is why I say what I do.

Yes, but atoms and other particles will eventually unravel during the Big Freeze, turning into something of a much simpler nature, perhaps nothing itself as even empty space perhaps evaporates. The critical question is what exactly does the Big Freeze turn into?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Hum,
i suspect the dimensions are a product of those tiny membranes.
So while the cyclic universe could normally be viewed as

0 = (-1 + 1) --> 0 ---> (-1 + 1) ---> 0 ----> etc, etc....

It is really, The Bulk --->The Bulk -->The Bulk --> etc, etc...

You completely lost me here. Please try to make your explanation clearer. Isn't the Bulk a higher dimension?

 

[cosmictraveler]

What begins ends and what ends begins.:itold:

 

[Yorda]

"General relativity explains gravitation without using the force of gravity... ...mass curves space-time"

Source

space time curvature may be a useful mathematical model, but it shouldn't be confused with reality.

 

[blobrana]

You completely lost me here. Please try to make your explanation clearer.

Imagine a glass of water that freezes and melts repeatedly.

water --> water --> water --> water -->

Isn't the Bulk a higher dimension?

Sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes

 

[John J. Bannan]

space time curvature may be a useful mathematical model, but it shouldn't be confused with reality.

Why shouldn't it be confused with reality? That's how Einstein himself explained it.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Imagine a glass of water that freezes and melts repeatedly.

water --> water --> water --> water -->




Sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes

Then, you are talking about a substance changing its form, but still being the same substance? I don't have any quarrel with this idea. My idea is that all is just a different form of nothingness, or that H2O in your example.
Second, how can a Brane be "sort of" a higher dimension? That just means you are not sure.

 

[Yorda]

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.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50041

There is no proof. Curvature of spacetime is just a useful model which makes accurate predictions about things we observe (such as the bending of light)."

 

[John J. Bannan]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50041

Sorry, I'll take Einstein over James R. anyday. Besides, James R. is simply pointing out that warped space is a basic assumption underlying GR, but that GR does not prove it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a basic assumption - would it?

 

[CptBork]

What James R. said is perfectly consistent with what Einstein said. Spacetime curvature is in essence a mathematical theory, which gives the correct predictions. That doesn't mean spacetime absolutely is a fabric with a geometry, it's merely a model that works as far as we've been able to test it to date.

 

[John J. Bannan]

What James R. said is perfectly consistent with what Einstein said. Spacetime curvature is in essence a mathematical theory, which gives the correct predictions. That doesn't mean spacetime absolutely is a fabric with a geometry, it's merely a model that works as far as we've been able to test it to date.

Well, isn't the fact that it works in tests some proof of its existence?
Second, what do you think of the observation that the Big Freeze is the unraveling of the Big Bang and will gives us a critical insight into what matter is made of? And, what do you think the Big Freeze will eventual unravel into?

 

[blobrana]

how can a Brane be "sort of" a higher dimension? That just means you are not sure.

yeah,
my knowledge stops about there.
But, i could guess that branes are multidimensional objects embedded in something equally fundamental such as `dimensions`, or that that the dimensions themselves are a consequence of the branes.

 

[Enmos]

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.

How is the universe nothingness when the total of its energy will always be the same (the statement you agreed with in italics) ?
Even if it infinitely stretched the sum of all the energy in it will still be the same, only infinitely dilute.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos is strangely silent?

Don't flatter yourself. I was busy living my real life.

 

[John J. Bannan]

How is the universe nothingness when the total of its energy will always be the same (the statement you agreed with in italics) ?
Even if it infinitely stretched the sum of all the energy in it will still be the same, only infinitely dilute.

Infinitely dilute? Do you hear yourself, brother? What happens to something that gets infinitely diluted? It turns into nothing.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Don't flatter yourself. I was busy living my real life.

I thought this was your real life. Sorry.

 

[Enmos]

I thought this was your real life. Sorry.

Not every one is the same as you..