The end of the universe into nothingness?

[Enmos]

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

No the concentration will be infinitely small, but NOT zero.
Do you understand what a closed system is ?

 

[John J. Bannan]

No the concentration will be infinitely small, but NOT zero.
Do you understand what a closed system is ?

You're confusing me here. Are you talking about energy being stretched to infinity, or are you talking about a mixture of energy and nothingness where the percentage concentration of energy to the whole becomes infinitely smaller?

 

[Yorda]

Well, space does have energy in it and is actually something, because space and matter do interact.

space is just an empty container. matter and space don't interact, it's the energy of space that interacts with matter.

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?

the thing that you call 'nothingness' is just a state where 'everything' is in equilibrium. since it contains everything in a latent state, everything (the universe) can come from it.

everything that we see has "fallen" from equilibrium (see: adam and eve story) into duality (positive and negative).

How is the universe nothingness when the total of its energy will always be the same (the statement you agreed with in italics) ?

the total energy of all the positive and negative things of the universe will always be zero (balanced). something positive can't appear from neutrality (zero) unless a negative equivalent is also created.

 

[Enmos]

You're confusing me here. Are you talking about energy being stretched to infinity, or are you talking about a mixture of energy and nothingness where the percentage concentration of energy to the whole becomes infinitely smaller?

I thought you mentioned stretching.. oh well.
What I am saying is that if the universe becomes infinitely large, no matter by what process, the total sum of all its energy will still be the same as it always was.

Agree ?

 

[John J. Bannan]

space is just an empty container. matter and space don't interact, it's the energy of space that interacts with matter.



the thing that you call 'nothingness' is just a state where 'everything' is in equilibrium. since it contains everything in a latent state, everything (the universe) can come from it.

everything that we see has "fallen" from equilibrium (see: adam and eve story) into duality (positive and negative).



the total energy of all the positive and negative things of the universe will always be zero (balanced). something positive can't appear from neutrality (zero) unless a negative equivalent is also created.

If space and matter don't interact, then why does gravity exist? Also, how can space be an empty container and still contain energy? Also, if space itself vaporizes in the Big Freeze, then everything won't exist will it? And as far as the equlibrium between postive and negative things, we exist don't we? So, there were apparently more particles than anti-particles after the Big Bang.

 

[John J. Bannan]

I thought you mentioned stretching.. oh well.
What I am saying is that if the universe becomes infinitely large, no matter by what process, the total sum of all its energy will still be the same as it always was.

Agree ?

That seems logical. But, what if the Big Freeze evaporates even space itself? Then, no, you would lose all energy. I've also heard talk of a possible Big Rip, which would also suck out all your precious energy.

 

[Enmos]

That seems logical. But, what if the Big Freeze evaporates even space itself? Then, no, you would lose all energy.

Ok, do we have any evidence the energy can evaporate into nothingness ? No.

Even if it could evaporate as you say, it would still have to go somewhere.
- If I put a bucket of water outside and after some days it has all evaporated away, do I assume the H[sub]2[/sub]O molecules from the bucket are no longer in existence ? No.
I am going to repeat here that the universe is by definition a closed system.

So are you going to agree about the sum of energy present in the universe no matter what its size is ? It's important that you agree or disagree. What-ifs are not helpful to anyone.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Ok, do we have any evidence the energy can evaporate into nothingness ? No.

Even if it could evaporate as you say, it would still have to go somewhere.
- If I put a bucket of water outside and after some days it has all evaporated away, do I assume the H[sub]2[/sub]O molecules from the bucket are no longer in existence ? No.
I am going to repeat here that the universe is by definition a closed system.

So are you going to agree about the sum of energy present in the universe no matter what its size is ? It's important that you agree or disagree. What-ifs are not helpful to anyone.

No, I won't agree. A finite amount of energy in an infinitely sized universe is equal to nothing. You cannot stretch or mix a finite amount of something infinitely. If the universe expands forever, nothingness will eventually exist.

 

[Enmos]

No, I won't agree. A finite amount of energy in an infinitely sized universe is equal to nothing. You cannot stretch or mix a finite amount of something infinitely. If the universe expands forever, nothingness will eventually exist.

Consider energy a particle for arguments sake.
If there is an infinite distance between two particles will the particles still exist ?

Also, the universe will never be infinitely large, because by definition it would take literally forever.

 

[Yorda]

If space and matter don't interact, then why does gravity exist?

because the energy that exists in space interacts with matter. in other words, matter interacts with matter.

Also, how can space be an empty container and still contain energy?

if a container is full of something, it can't contain anything. it must be empty. for example a cup must be empty before you can fill it with coffee. space contains energy (like matter, planets and ether), but if you could take away all the energy, you would have empty space.

of course, you can never take the energy away from emptiness, because nothingness constantly creates energy.

Also, if space itself vaporizes in the Big Freeze, then everything won't exist will it?

everything exists in nothingness. an empty paper contains everything. if you draw something on it, it already existed there, it just wasn't visible because the negative and positive sides were unified.

Also, the universe will never be infinitely large, because by definition it would take literally forever.

the space in the universe MUST be infinite, because space can't end. there can't be a boundary with no more space beyond it. that's why matter must also exist everywhere in this infinite universe, because matter is created from space. it doesn't matter if it would 'take forever' to 'fill' this infinite space because the space, and thus the universe, has existed forever.

nothingness can't have a boundary, it must be infinite, and therefore it is 'everything'.

 

[Enmos]

the space in the universe MUST be infinite, because space can't end. there can't be a boundary with no more space beyond it. that's why matter must also exist everywhere in this infinite universe, because matter is created from space.

nothingness can't have a boundary, it must be infinite, and therefore it is 'everything'.

Don't worry, it's just where your mind shuts down.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Consider energy a particle for arguments sake.
If there is an infinite distance between two particles will the particles still exist ?

Also, the universe will never be infinitely large, because by definition it would take literally forever.

Now, that's a good question. Does the Big Freeze result in the decay of all particles, even photons? Or, can a massless particle live forever? I don't know. If your hypothetical particles decay eventual, then it doesn't matter how much space is between them, the particle will eventually cease to exist. Also, let's not forget that you are talking about distance, as in empty space. If the Big Freeze is the unraveling of the Big Bang, what does it unravel into? Photons? Empty space? Or nothingness? If the universe keeps expanding indefinitely, then the answer is nothing. Why? Because a finite quantity of energy whether in the form of photons or empty space simply cannot be stretched or mixed infinitely.
Second, the Big Rip proposes that "theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip. Therefore, the universe doesn't have to literally expand forever in order for the effect of such forever expansion to be felt by energy.

 

[Enmos]

Now, that's a good question. Does the Big Freeze result in the decay of all particles, even photons? Or, can a massless particle live forever? I don't know. If your hypothetical particles decay eventual, then it doesn't matter how much space is between them, the particle will eventually cease to exist. Also, let's not forget that you are talking about distance, as in empty space. If the Big Freeze is the unraveling of the Big Bang, what does it unravel into? Photons? Empty space? Or nothingness? If the universe keeps expanding indefinitely, then the answer is nothing. Why? Because a finite quantity of energy whether in the form of photons or empty space simply cannot be stretched or mixed infinitely.

This is my last attempt.

1a.

Imagine a line with a 0 drawn every n units of length.
Lets say the 0's represent particles in space.
0---0---0---0---0---0---0
How much zeros are on the line ?​

1b.

Now, stretch the line infinitely.
How much 0's are on the line now ?​

Second, the Big Rip proposes that "theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip. Therefore, the universe doesn't have to literally expand forever in order for the effect of such forever expansion to be felt by energy.

That is logically impossible.

 

[John J. Bannan]

This is my last attempt.

1a.

Imagine a line with a 0 drawn every n units of length.
Lets say the 0's represent particles in space.
0---0---0---0---0---0---0
How much zeros are on the line ?​

1b.

Now, stretch the line infinitely.
How much 0's are on the line now ?​

That is logically impossible.

You are assuming the particles, or zeros, don't decay and exist forever. What makes you think these particles will stay the same forever?

 

[Enmos]

You are assuming the particles, or zeros, don't decay and exist forever. What makes you think these particles will stay the same forever?

What makes you assume they won't ?

 

[John J. Bannan]

What makes you assume they won't ?

Well, if even a black hole will eventually decay, why wouldn't a particle?

 

[Enmos]

Well, if even a black hole will eventually decay, why wouldn't a particle?

Ok, decaying is not evaporating into nothingness.
It's the breaking up into smaller particles.
All the energy (including matter) present in a black hole will still be there in the universe after the black hole has decayed (bucket of water analogy).

As a side note, I'm sure not we've ever actually seen a black hole decay. Isn't it just one of those hypotheses they made up to explain something else ? Btw, I'm not saying they don't..

 

[John J. Bannan]

Ok, decaying is not evaporating into nothingness.
It's the breaking up into smaller particles.
All the energy (including matter) present in a black hole will still be there in the universe after the black hole has decayed (bucket of water analogy).

As a side note, I'm sure not we've ever actually seen a black hole decay. Isn't it just one of those hypotheses they made up to explain something else ? Btw, I'm not saying they don't..

Stephen Hawkings said black holes will eventually decay as the universe expands. Apparently, because the universe becomes "colder" than the black hole. And I do say that the expansion of the universe will eventually turn all matter (and empty space?) into its lowest constituent part. What I am saying is that the lowest constituent part is nothingness (or dimension if that's a more acceptable term for you). I understand your argument about the conservation of energy. But, if energy is a form of nothingness (or dimension to give it more physicallness), then the energy is conserved but transformed to its infinite form.

 

[Enmos]

Stephen Hawkings said black holes will eventually decay as the universe expands. Apparently, because the universe becomes "colder" than the black hole. And I do say that the expansion of the universe will eventually turn all matter (and empty space?) into its lowest constituent part. What I am saying is that the lowest constituent part is nothingness (or dimension if that's a more acceptable term for you). I understand your argument about the conservation of energy. But, if energy is a form of nothingness (or dimension to give it more physicallness), then the energy is conserved but transformed to its infinite form.

You have yet to prove that somethingness is a form of nothingness through sensible arguments.
Anyway, I said it was my last attempt.
I don't see how this discussion is ever going to end otherwise.

 

[John J. Bannan]

You have yet to prove that somethingness is a form of nothingness through sensible arguments.
Anyway, I said it was my last attempt.
I don't see how this discussion is ever going to end otherwise.

If the universe expands infinitely, as we are now being told by physicists as a result of the Big Freeze, then any finite amount of energy will eventually be distributed in an infinite universe making that finite amount of energy zero. What's so non-sensical about that? A finite number is zero in comparison to infinity.
In the alternative, if all particles decay, then an infinitely expanding universe will eventually result in a unform state of energy in an infinitely small form. Again, how is this really any different than the infinite universe itself? This is not non-sensical. You simply haven't come to grips with the implications of the Big Freeze, and that is where your mind shuts down.