The Universe shouldn't expand infinitely?

[Гера�им]

While there is a space of the Universe,the Universe is expanding,but the galaxies collide,their masses grow. Large mass of the substance bend,reduce the space around.Space will all shrink and shrink,and eventually expanding to a stop, the Universe will shrink and can happen a new Big Bang.

[Strange]

While there is a space of the Universe,the Universe is expanding,but the galaxies collide,their masses grow.

 

Those processes don't increase to total mass-energy of the universe. There currently doesn't appear to be enough mass to stop expansion. In fact, expansion appears to the be accelerating.

 

So, unless/until we discover something new, it will continue expanding indefinitely.

[DevilSolution]

The big crunch. Time is the most important variable, were using equations that dont account for genesis.

[BusaDave9]

The universe is expanding and there doesn't seem to be anything that can stop it. The only thing that could stop it would be gravity. And for gravity to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe there would have to be more matter in the universe than we realize.

 

A constantly expanding of the universe bothers me. It also has bothers cosmologists. For this reason they have always come up with theories that would prevent the universe from expanding for ever. Once such theory is the theory of dark matter. This theory says there must be lots of matter in the universe that we can't detect. Enough matter to eventually stop the expanding and cause a contracting of the universe.

 

If we could come up with a theory that would show that the universe will eventually contract into a big crunch. Then another universe could develop from the matter of the previous universe.

Then eternity could be explained. A big bang would create a universe that would end in a big crunch and then another big bang would create another new universe. An eternity like that does not need a definite beginning or end (just like a circle does not need a definite beginning or end).

 

If the scientist don't come up with a theory like that then it would be hard accepting that the universe had a specific beginning but no end.

[Bill Angel]

The universe is expanding and there doesn't seem to be anything that can stop it. The only thing that could stop it would be gravity. And for gravity to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe there would have to be more matter in the universe than we realize.

 

A constantly expanding of the universe bothers me. It also has bothers cosmologists. For this reason they have always come up with theories that would prevent the universe from expanding for ever. Once such theory is the theory of dark matter. This theory says there must be lots of matter in the universe that we can't detect. Enough matter to eventually stop the expanding and cause a contracting of the universe.

 

I would have to disagree with you here. Any discussions of dark matter that I've read about have not suggested that there might be enough dark matter in the universe to stop the universe from expanding and to start the universe contracting.

[Airbrush]

Can something with a finite size become infinite in size? I don't think it is possible. How does something smaller than a proton grow to an infinite size in a finite amount of time?

 

If only the observable universe began smaller than a proton, how does an infinite universe grow from anything with a finite size?

[StringJunky]

Airbrush, on 29 Nov 2013 - 8:17 PM, said:Airbrush, on 29 Nov 2013 - 8:17 PM, said:Airbrush, on 29 Nov 2013 - 8:17 PM, said:Airbrush, on 29 Nov 2013 - 8:17 PM, said:

Can something with a finite size become infinite in size? I don't think it is possible. How does something smaller than a proton grow to an infinite size in a finite amount of time?

 

If only the observable universe began smaller than a proton, how does an infinite universe grow from anything with a finite size?

The finite observable universe is a subset of an infinite universe. There can be an infinite number of side-by-side observable universes within an infinite one, so, that would mean an infinite number of proton-sized observable universes made up the early universe, It should now follow that It can be infinite at all times with a proton-sized early observable universe and still make sense.

 

Infinity / Some finite size = Infinity

Edited November 29, 2013 by StringJunky

[Airbrush]

The finite observable universe is a subset of an infinite universe. There can be an infinite number of side-by-side observable universes within an infinite one, so, that would mean an infinite number of proton-sized observable universes made up the early universe, It should now follow that It can be infinite at all times with a proton-sized early observable universe and still make sense.

 

Infinity / Some finite size = Infinity

 

Nice answer, best I've heard for my question. If an infinite number of big bangs starting out smaller than a proton, at the same moment, then the big bang started infinite in size. When you "stack" together an infinite number of big bangs, like grains of sand, each with a finite size, they would stretch to infinity at the moment of "bang" no matter how small, even the planck length. But that means that a finite distance from the edge of our big bang is another big bang. Could that explain dark flow? Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs? Could side by side universes push against each other?

Edited November 30, 2013 by Airbrush

[BusaDave9]

If the universe is infinite now it always was.

It is more likely that the universe is finite but unbounded. There is no end to the universe but there may be a finite amount of matter in it. It is like the universe is curved like tthe surface of a sphere.

But it's not like there were infinite separate big bangs next to eachother. The big bang occured everywhere. One big bang. Imagine going back in time. there was a time when the entire observable universe were in the singularity. But there was only one singularity and one big bang. The universe was infinitely compressed.

[Rockinghorse]

There are not any kinds of infinities in the universe. Everything that is infinite by its nature is also infinitely improbable.

[StringJunky]

Rockinghorse, on 07 Dec 2013 - 6:06 PM, said:

There are not any kinds of infinities in the universe. Everything that is infinite by its nature is also infinitely improbable.

Evidence? Just because you can't comprehend it, it doesn't objectively follow that it's infinitely improbable...it just means your brain has turned into blancmange thinking about it.

[Bill Angel]

Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs? Could side by side universes push against each other?

I'm unclear what an "infinite series of simultaneous big bangs" would correspond to, but the idea of universes pushing against each other is discussed in the context of colliding branes, in String Cosmology. It's called the Ekpyrotic universe.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

The ekpyrotic model maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity , but came about from the collision of two brane universes.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Bill Angel

[BusaDave9]

 

If an infinite number of big bangs starting out smaller than a proton,

...

Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs? Could side by side universes push against each other?

You can't have separate univereses "pushing" against each other. If 2 universes are separate they have separate dimensions. You could not fly a spaceship from one universe to another. If you could they would be the same universe.

 

What would be between these "universes"? More space? It sounds like it would just be one big universe, just not as uniform as scientist say it was.

Edited December 8, 2013 by BusaDave9

[StringJunky]

BusaDave9, on 08 Dec 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

You can't have separate univereses "pushing" against each other. If 2 universes are separate they have separate dimensions. You could not fly a spaceship from one universe to another. If you could they would be the same universe.

 

What would be between these "universes"? More space? It sounds like it would just be one big universe, just not as uniform as scientist say it was.

I just want to make it clear that in my reply to Airbrush I was only talking about one universe and just cutting it up into OU sized sections - a section this size now might have started out the size of a proton then.

[BusaDave9]

I was only talking about one universe and just cutting it up into OU sized sections

 

I understand. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory isn't about separate universes originating from the same Big Bang. I did not mean to imply you were saying otherwise.

 

I was trying to help Airbrush understand.

Edited December 8, 2013 by BusaDave9

[hoola]

if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, at what point does the material's speed approach C and the speed can go no faster? If this can happen, then the matter coming in from behind it will coalesce and begin forming compressed areas of increasing density...if this continues long enough, does the pressure from behind, and the light speed barrier in front of the material eventually squeeze the material into a black hole density? If this could be true, what shape would the black hole material have? A cloud of mini black holes, spherically shaped as a stationary black holes are, eventually to formulate into a shell of black hole density material, forming a sphere the size as to encompass the entire universe....with more material being attracted to it as the gravity field event horizon increases, perhaps being a minor factor in the increasing speed of the expansion?....it seems a sphere of that size, if one were to somehow approach it with a survey vehicle, would appear to an observer as a flat plane, as any sphere of that gigantic size would be indistinguishable from a perfectly flat surface.....and if this bizarre scenario could take place, what is on the outside of the sphere? In a finite universe, I say nothing....not even dark energy. A "perfect" void....In this humorous thought experiment, we live inside a black hole the size of the universe.....this kind of goes along with the idea that the universe is a 3D hologram that is projected from information encoded on a 2D surface, that surface being the inside of the black hole shell......on a more serious note, the expansion seems to be from the dark energy output from all over space. The most pressing question is why and how does this apparently free energy exist, and does it violate the conservation of energy law? If the expansion continues long enough, at what point does the shell wall thickness increase until the interior is completely closed and the entire universe is encompassed by the black hole event horizon? Like a supernova, at some point before the entire universe became filled, the decreasing internal pressure would be overwhelmed by increasing gravitational forces, causing a black hole collapse, into yet another singularity.....this at least would answer the conservation of energy problem, as all energy would be returned to the singularity and the universe would shrink to the size proposed in the current "big bang" theories.....in this scenario, the gravity field would be so immense as to prevent even gravity itself from escape.....and even more strangely, the dimensions themselves would disappear, drawing in the "perfect void edge" to surround the singularity as the shell collapses .......edd

Edited December 8, 2013 by hoola

[decraig]

"The Universe shouldn't expand infinitely?"

 

Probably not, though it seems to be expanding indefinitely.

 

Any why not? Current spacetime theory embodies transfinite quantites. Relativity theory is written in differential geometry. An order change in transfinite values should be well accommodated, without modification to general relativity.

Edited December 8, 2013 by decraig

[BusaDave9]

Hoola, I don't agree with much of anything you have posted. Starting off with "if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate"

No the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. It is expanding, but not accelerating.

 

The expansion is not "from the dark energy output from all over space". It is from the energy from the big bang. But the gravitational force of the matter in the universes it slowing down the expansion. Much of the matter in the universe is dark matter that is hard to measure. We can tell how much matter is in the stars and galaxies but not how much matter is drifting in between the starts and galaxies. If there is enough dark matter then the universe will stop expanding and contract back into a big crunch.

[Moontanman]

if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, at what point does the material's speed approach C and the speed can go no faster? If this can happen, then the matter coming in from behind it will coalesce and begin forming compressed areas of increasing density...if this continues long enough, does the pressure from behind, and the light speed barrier in front of the material eventually squeeze the material into a black hole density? If this could be true, what shape would the black hole material have? A cloud of mini black holes, spherically shaped as a stationary black holes are, eventually to formulate into a shell of black hole density material, forming a sphere the size as to encompass the entire universe....with more material being attracted to it as the gravity field event horizon increases, perhaps being a minor factor in the increasing speed of the expansion?....it seems a sphere of that size, if one were to somehow approach it with a survey vehicle, would appear to an observer as a flat plane, as any sphere of that gigantic size would be indistinguishable from a perfectly flat surface.....and if this bizarre scenario could take place, what is on the outside of the sphere? In a finite universe, I say nothing....not even dark energy. A "perfect" void....In this humorous thought experiment, we live inside a black hole the size of the universe.....this kind of goes along with the idea that the universe is a 3D hologram that is projected from information encoded on a 2D surface, that surface being the inside of the black hole shell......on a more serious note, the expansion seems to be from the dark energy output from all over space. The most pressing question is why and how does this apparently free energy exist, and does it violate the conservation of energy law? If the expansion continues long enough, at what point does the shell wall thickness increase until the interior is completely closed and the entire universe is encompassed by the black hole event horizon? Like a supernova, at some point before the entire universe became filled, the decreasing internal pressure would be overwhelmed by increasing gravitational forces, causing a black hole collapse, into yet another singularity.....this at least would answer the conservation of energy problem, as all energy would be returned to the singularity and the universe would shrink to the size proposed in the current "big bang" theories.....in this scenario, the gravity field would be so immense as to prevent even gravity itself from escape.....and even more strangely, the dimensions themselves would disappear, drawing in the "perfect void edge" to surround the singularity as the shell collapses .......edd

 

 

Yes objects can recede from each other faster than light, the edge of the observable universe will eventually recede away and all we will be able to see is our local group of galaxies that bound by gravity...

 

Hoola, I don't agree with much of anything you have posted. Starting off with "if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate"

No the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. It is expanding, but not accelerating.

 

The expansion is not "from the dark energy output from all over space". It is from the energy from the big bang. But the gravitational force of the matter in the universes it slowing down the expansion. Much of the matter in the universe is dark matter that is hard to measure. We can tell how much matter is in the stars and galaxies but not how much matter is drifting in between the starts and galaxies. If there is enough dark matter then the universe will stop expanding and contract back into a big crunch.

 

What you are asserting here is not inline with the general scientific consensus, the universe evidently does appear to be accelerating at an ever increasing rate which will eventually exceed the speed of light and all we will be able to see is our own galactic local group, Imagine in this far away future when astronomers will only be able to see our own galaxy and nothing else, they will have no idea of the big bang or expansion...

[hoola]

well, I have read repeatedly that the '96 nova survey says that the universe is expanding and at an accelerating rate....I base my idea on that simple (supposed) fact. However, I see that space itself is expanding and the material itself is simply going along with it, so the increasing speed is only our observation from our great distance...and so remote matter will not undergo compression or mass increase through accelerations, as the space it is embedded in speeds away and the material doesn't sense the speed like a person sitting on a moving train. So, no shell of a black hole developing around the universe,,,,but what about the dark energy sources? Yes, I agree that they were the source of the big bang, but aren't they still with us? As evidenced by virtual particle expression everywhere? And isn't this virtual particle expression, in fact, this dark energy that is causing the expansion? If the dark energy is a continuous phenomena, and not just a hold-over from the big bang, then those point sources of energy are what space itself is constructed of, and all local (material) movement is relative to the movement (via cosmic expansion) of dark energy point sources, (or space itself), proximate to said material. So this tends to make me think of the "flux" of space makes sense, an old idea from the 19th century as I recall. It is odd to think about the edges of the universe actually speeding away from each other faster than C, but I can see how that could be true, losing the ability to see what was once there as time goes on....will the far off edge will get red-shifted and then go down in frequency to the microwave range, and blend in with the current microwave background....and then degrade into heat ...and perhaps be observable only in the infrared....could there be a point that even the infrared observations would cease?....edd

[Strange]

 

Why doesn't anyone talk about the big bang as an infinite series of simultaneous big bangs?

 

They do (well, maybe not simultaneous - but if they were simultaneous then it would be a single big bang rather than a series):

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

No the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. It is expanding, but not accelerating.

 

"Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate."

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

[Simpleton]

The thought of the possibility that virtual particles (the flax of space?) maybe, or even "be" the dominant factor in the expansion of space and in time may have the ability to stop this expansion deserves a further consideration, comments and opinions from knowledgeable, subject informed members.

I will try to formulate a question and post it to avoid potential hijack of this thread.