So what if the universe is getting older?

[drone technician]

I see these articles about all the matter in the universe dying one day and it all seems too speculative to me. Extrapolation beyond any reasonable timescale is guessing. Sure particles can die but new matter is being created too. If matter is leaving our universe through black holes then it must be entering our universe from black holes in other universes. Some of those universes would be younger than ours so the matter would be longer lived than the original matter in our universe. So the universe is being constantly replenished with fresh matter. Also who is to say another universe or two might not pop up inside our universe in the next few trillion years? It could alreadsy be happening. That would explain why the part of the universe we inhabit seems to be expanding at an increasingly rapid rate. So maybe the universe will last forever.

[antoniseb]

... If matter is leaving our universe through black holes then it must be entering our universe from black holes in other universes. ...

Ummm. I don't think this logic holds up, even if you DO assume that the premise is true.

[NEOWatcher]

I see these articles about all the matter in the universe dying one day and it all seems too speculative to me. Extrapolation beyond any reasonable timescale is guessing.

It's not just "guessing", even though there is some extrapolation, it is based on a lot of math.

Sure particles can die but new matter is being created too.

Particles don't go away when they die. They just lose all energy.
I don't know where you get that new matter is being created either.

[Noclevername]

Sure particles can die but new matter is being created too.

There's no evidence of this happening.

If matter is leaving our universe through black holes then it must be entering our universe from black holes in other universes. Some of those universes would be younger than ours so the matter would be longer lived than the original matter in our universe. So the universe is being constantly replenished with fresh matter.

That's not how black holes work. They are just large masses whose gravity is too great for light to escape. They aren't actually "holes" to anywhere, they're more like cosmic rat traps-- matter goes in, but it doesn't go out.

[Terran]

matter goes in, but it doesn't go out.

Unless Hawking is right. Than all black holes would actually evaporate if you waited long enough.

[jfribrg]

As I understand it, the theories about the end of the universe (ex: the Big Rip) are indeed based on extrapolation of empirical measurements of the known universe (and the current cosmological theories) . However, the other theories about worm-holes and alternate universes ( especially the part where black holes are transports into other universes) are far more speculative. If the theories about the end of the universe are "guessing", then you need to at least apply the same amount of skepticism to the alternatives that you have mentioned.

[Noclevername]

Unless Hawking is right. Than all black holes would actually evaporate if you waited long enough.

Maybe, but if he's right then it doesn't go into another universe. It just leaks back out into this one.

[Cougar]

It just leaks back out into this one.

Right, as a thinning wisp of radiation.

[Cougar]

I see these articles about all the matter in the universe dying one day and it all seems too speculative to me.

Not sure which articles you're talking about, but entropy in a closed system always increases. We just have to get used to it. It is rather remote to consider the end of the universe. But it's really just a part of studying the universe as a whole, throughout its history. As to your opinion that the implications of known physics along with contemporary astronomical and cosmological findings are "too speculative," I must guess that you are just uninformed about the vast array of experiments, data, and observations you are up against if you want to maintain your position.

Sure particles can die but....

Protons don't seem to decay, and boy, that's not because scientists haven't devised experiments to try to catch one decaying. They've found that if they decay at all, they must have a half-life greater than something like 10³³ years. That's more than three times the current age of the universe, which is already pretty old.

[loglo]

[nitpick] Actually 10³³ years is about 10²³ times the current age of the universe. [/nitpick]

[WayneFrancis]

I see these articles about all the matter in the universe dying one day and it all seems too speculative to me.

What and why do you finding speculative? I'm assuming you are talking about Baryons decaying. Am I correct?

Extrapolation beyond any reasonable timescale is guessing.

What do you consider reasonable? It really depends on what you are talking about too. Laws of physics are a pretty safe bet. curium 247 has a half life of 15,600,000 years. Given a block of Curium 247 do you think it is unreasonable to say that in about 15 billion years only half of that block will still be curium 247? If so why?

Sure particles can die but new matter is being created too.

True but I don't believe it happens in the way you are thinking. Particles can decay but creating a new particle isn't as likely. If you believe it is then describe how.

If matter is leaving our universe through black holes then it must be entering our universe from black holes in other universes.

Do you have evidence of this or is this a gut feel of yours. I don't know if I'd say the matter is leaving our universe as much as it is partially out of causal contact. I say partially because we are still effected by its charge and gravity.

Some of those universes would be younger than ours so the matter would be longer lived than the original matter in our universe.

This is beyond ATM. There is no evidence of white holes in our universe and black holes are only theorised to emit hawking radiation which is just photons and you can't age a photon.

So the universe is being constantly replenished with fresh matter.

No, no it isn't. If you disagree provide some evidence.

Also who is to say another universe or two might not pop up inside our universe in the next few trillion years?

Who's to say invisible pink winged unicorns aren't responsible for holding me and everything else down on the ground and "gravity" is a not what we think it is. I'll still bet on gravity being real and researching exactly how it works instead of looking for those IPWUs

It could alreadsy be happening.

Yet we have no evidence of it.

That would explain why the part of the universe we inhabit seems to be expanding at an increasingly rapid rate. So maybe the universe will last forever.

The current mainstream models don't say it won't last forever. What they say is if expansion keeps happening the state of the universe won't stay the same. Big difference. Ie when the universe is expanding so much that and everything has decayed into photons that are all causally disconnected it is still our universe. Just one where all the matter has decayed into photons and expansion has pretty much isolated them all from each other.

[kevin1981]

curium 247 has a half life of 15,600,000 years.

If we have not observed Curium 247 decaying, from start to finish, then how do we know it's half life is 15,600,000 years ?

[Shaula]

If we have not observed Curium 247 decaying, from start to finish, then how do we know it's half life is 15,600,000 years ?

Because of the way radioactive decay works and what a half life is. The half life is the time it would take for half the atoms in a sample of the material to decay. It is related to the probability of one atom decaying. We get a lump of curium and watch it. Over a year we see N decays, we know there were M atoms of curium so we can work out the probability of a decay happening. Then a bit of simple maths gives us the half life. Radioactive decay is random - it is not dependent on time at all. The probability for one atom to decay is constant - how long it has been around is not important to it, it does not have an internal clock. It just means that if it has a 1 in 10 chance of decaying per second then after 1000 seconds the odds of it still being there are tiny

[drone technician]

Isn't the creation of universes also random? Therefore fresh matter from other big bangs could arrive at any time and replenish the universe with matter. We can't see the edge of our universe. For all we know it goes on for infinity. In an infinite universe the chances of another big bang happening right now is 100%. So at some unknown random points in our space-time continuum fresh matter is arriving. Ofcourse the universe doesn't have to infinite. Just incredibly huge to the degree that it becomes mathematically probable big bangs will occur within it.

[Cougar]

[nitpick] Actually 10³³ years is about 10²³ times the current age of the universe. [/nitpick]

Heavens to Betsy. That's an awfully big nit! Only 23 orders of magnitude off! Fortunately, I do not work for NASA.

[Andrew D]

Let's not forget that according to Einstein's theory, energy and matter are just different field configurations, and to an outside observer, no matter is ever lost to a black hole, the obeserver would measure the infalling matter as thermal radiation on the horizon (he never sees the matter fall through). So discussing energy in our causally connected universe, I'ts important to ignore the horizon and below. The observable universe itself is a solution of the EFE's resembling an inverted black hole, which is not to say that it is a "white hole", but that it is surrounded by an event horizon from the inside looking out (namely, the "cosmological horizon" or "cosmic event horizon"). This surface emits thermal radiation in the same manner as the event horizon of a black hole.

Also, I think it's important in this discussion to define what you mean by "end of the universe". Some people may be referring to the heat death of the universe, in which case the universe will not have "ended" per se, just gotten rather boring, and others to some sort of collapse or event which is the literal end of the universe.

[WayneFrancis]

If we have not observed Curium 247 decaying, from start to finish, then how do we know it's half life is 15,600,000 years ?

You obviously don't understand half lives and how they are measured. It isn't like it takes 15,600,000 for a curium atom to decay. We don't need to wait for 15,600,000 years to determine the half life. The decay happens VERY quickly. The half life is a probability of any curium 247 atom to decay. Some will decay soon. Some will decay later. What you do is get a BUNCH of curium atoms, the more the better, and then you use statistics to determine the half life.

No one has watched carbon 14 for about 5,730 to verify its half life. But we know that using the value of ~5,730 years as a half life yields very accurate results. In fact the half life of carbon is down to 180,701,003,776 seconds.

Perhaps you should ask questions like "What does 'half life' actually mean?", "How do they work out an isotope's half-life?", "What happens when an isotope decays?"

[drone technician]

We can probably only see a fraction of the universe. It could go on for infinity but we cant see further than about 13.75 billion light years. If the universe exists beyond the limits of the local big bang and actually stretches on to an unimaginably vast enough distance the big bangs would statistically become common occurences at random points throught time and space. The universe would be constantly replenished. White holes might be theoretical but the big bang isn't. Some theorists have suggested the big bang was a white hole ofcourse but my question is this: could this fit the observed data? Might a universe full of flowering big bangs explain why we see local space expanding at an ever increasing rate? A big bang must have some peculiar interactions on an already existing space time continuum.

[kevin1981]

You obviously don't understand half lives and how they are measured.

I understand the half life for medications but no, i have no understanding of atomic half lives.

What does 'half life' actually mean?, How do they work out an isotope's half-life?, What happens when an isotope decays?

[antoniseb]

... What does 'half life' actually mean?, How do they work out an isotope's half-life?, What happens when an isotope decays?

In an isotope's half-life, half of the nuclei will decay. In the next half-life half of what's left will decay.
So let's say you have 100 kilograms of the Plutonium isotope that emits alpha particles and is used to power our old deep-space probes. It has a half life of 88 years. So, 88 years after assembling the power module it has half as much Plutonium, and now some Uranium that is the decay product. The unit produces half as much power. After another 88 years, you're down to 25 kg of Plutonium, and after yet another 88 years down to 12.5 Kg, and so on.

[Noclevername]

For the three questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope

[cjameshuff]

Heavens to Betsy. That's an awfully big nit! Only 23 orders of magnitude off! Fortunately, I do not work for NASA.

The LCROSS impactor would have been rather more impressive...

Isn't the creation of universes also random? Therefore fresh matter from other big bangs could arrive at any time and replenish the universe with matter. We can't see the edge of our universe. For all we know it goes on for infinity. In an infinite universe the chances of another big bang happening right now is 100%. So at some unknown random points in our space-time continuum fresh matter is arriving. Ofcourse the universe doesn't have to infinite. Just incredibly huge to the degree that it becomes mathematically probable big bangs will occur within it.

The creation of the universe may have been random, nonrandom, or the concept of randomness may not even be applicable. Other big bangs would form other universes, though, not add matter to ours, and you have no reason to think that anything like a big bang will continue to occur within a universe of any size. Impossible events are impossible no matter how many chances you give them to occur, and you have given no reason to think that creation of "fresh matter" from nothing within an existing universe is possible.

[drone technician]

The creation of the universe may have been random, nonrandom, or the concept of randomness may not even be applicable.

Ofcourse it was random. Are you implying creationism was at work? Religion and science should NEVER mix. The big bang clearly happened. The size of the universe is completely unknown. Why ASSUME the local big bang occurence has only happened once when our telescopes can't even see beyond that event? In an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of Big Bang explosions going off continuously. This would make the universe very active.

Other big bangs would form other universes, though, not add matter to ours,

Pure speculation. Big Bangs happening inside an existing universe would have to add matter to ours. Big Bangs are the creation of matter(Anti-Matter too).

and you have no reason to think that anything like a big bang will continue to occur within a universe of any size.

We've had one big bang. If it can happen once then how do we know it can't happen again? How do we know it didn't happen inside an existing universe which would be the case if our universe is infinite.

Impossible events are impossible no matter how many chances you give them to occur, and you have given no reason to think that creation of "fresh matter" from nothing within an existing universe is possible.

The Big Bang was matter created out of nothing. So your argument is that the big bang was impossible?

[cjameshuff]

Ofcourse it was random. Are you implying creationism was at work? Religion and science should NEVER mix.

Wow. Is that really all you could come up with? No, I'm not proposing creationism or anything remotely related to religion.

The big bang clearly happened. The size of the universe is completely unknown. Why ASSUME the local big bang occurence has only happened once when our telescopes can't even see beyond that event? In an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of Big Bang explosions going off continuously. This would make the universe very active.

Yes, the big bang happened. The phrase "local big bang occurrence" has no meaning, the Big Bang was a quite literally universal event. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how far our telescopes can see, and the Big Bang was not an explosion.

Pure speculation. Big Bangs happening inside an existing universe would have to add matter to ours. Big Bangs are the creation of matter(Anti-Matter too).

The Big Bang refers to the conditions and processes at the very start of our universe, when it was in a much more compact and dense state and rapidly expanding. There can't be more than one.

We've had one big bang. If it can happen once then how do we know it can't happen again? How do we know it didn't happen inside an existing universe which would be the case if our universe is infinite.

Your questions betray major misunderstandings of the Big Bang model. Your statements are quite literally nonsensical when applied to the Big Bang. It isn't something that can repeat or that can happen in a particular location.

The Big Bang was matter created out of nothing. So your argument is that the big bang was impossible?

...nope, just that your arguments about events occurring in an infinite universe are flawed. The universe may well be infinite, it appears to be flat on the largest scales. If so, it is likely that every possible event has occurred somewhere. However, an impossible event will never occur anywhere, even in an infinite universe. You can not use an infinite universe to claim that your claimed introductions of "fresh matter" occur without first proving that those events are possible. The Big Bang is not proof, as it was a fundamentally very different event, being something that did not occur in an existing universe.

[drone technician]

There is no meat in your sandwich. You have done nothing but espouse your opinion. I've backed my words up with facts and logic.

No, I'm not proposing creationism or anything remotely related to religion.

Soooooo....... What are you proposing? Either Big Bangs are random or they aren't. If not then what are they? Non-random? Non-random implies planned which in turn implies divine intervention. I'm waiting.

the Big Bang was a quite literally universal event.

A theory with nothing to back it up. we don't know how big the universe is so how can we know the Big Bang was a UNIVERSAL event.

and the Big Bang was not an explosion.

An explosion is a rapid expansion of matter. Its as good a description as any.

The Big Bang refers to the conditions and processes at the very start of our universe,

People make mistakes. Assuming the universe started with the big bang was probably one of them. Any evidence that the universe wasn't around prior to the Big Bang?

There can't be more than one.

Because you say so? Elaborate and stop pontificating.

Your questions betray major misunderstandings of the Big Bang model. Your statements are quite literally nonsensical when applied to the Big Bang. It isn't something that can repeat or that can happen in a particular location.

I understand the model. I'm disagreeing with fundamental points of it. Why assume the universe wasn't already here?

The Big Bang is not proof, as it was a fundamentally very different event, being something that did not occur in an existing universe.

Prove it. A model is just a theory. Multiverse theory predicts an infinite number of other universes. So how can you definitively state that nothing existed prior to this one Big Bang? Give me some information for a change.

[Strange]

Non-random implies planned which in turn implies divine intervention.

Not at all. Pulsars and geysers are both regular as clockwork but completely natural.

A theory with nothing to back it up. we don't know how big the universe is so how can we know the Big Bang was a UNIVERSAL event.

That is what the big bang is defined to be.

An explosion is a rapid expansion of matter. Its as good a description as any.

It is a terrible description of the big bang, which wasn't a rapid expansion of matter.

[Tensor]

I've backed my words up with facts and logic.

I haven't seen you present any reference to any equations, calculations or papers indicating any fact. Nor any logic, other than some comments that can be attributed to some popular science articles and books.

Soooooo....... What are you proposing? Either Big Bangs are random or they aren't. If not then what are they? Non-random? Non-random implies planned which in turn implies divine intervention. I'm waiting.

Strange already pointed out examples of natural objects that are non-random. Wanna try something else?

A theory with nothing to back it up.

Improper use of the word Theory. A theory has a lot of evidence, both observational and theoretical to support it. See below.

we don't know how big the universe is so how can we know the Big Bang was a UNIVERSAL event.

We know how big observations indicate the universe is... which indicates the big bang was a universal event. Unless you have some actual observations from peer reviewed papers. Do you?

An explosion is a rapid expansion of matter. Its as good a description as any.

A description usually made by amateurs. Professionals usually describe it as a rapid expansion of space. If you think that expansions of space and matter are the same, you need to do some more research.

People make mistakes. Assuming the universe started with the big bang was probably one of them. Any evidence that the universe wasn't around prior to the Big Bang?

There is no evidence either way. Unless, of course, you have some actual peer-reviewed papers that present some evidence.

Because you say so? Elaborate and stop pontificating.

Pot, meet kettle.

I understand the model. I'm disagreeing with fundamental points of it.

Since you understand the model, please explain to us exactly how the expansion of a Pseudo Reinmann Manifold and the expansion of matter are the same. This should be interesting since matter (in the form of energy) and the description of the manifold are on different sides of the equations. But, hey, it'll be interesting to see how you do it.

Why assume the universe wasn't already here?

Because at this point, it's not science. There is no way of falsifying what was here prior to the big bang. We can hypothesis, we can speculate, both of which can be fun, but because simply can't and don't know, it can't be falsified and, as a result, it's not science.

Prove it.

I suggest you read the rules. This area is for giving mainstream answers to questions. If you don't like the answers and think you have a better idea, there is ATM.

A model is just a theory.

No, you are demonstrating more confusion about what a model and what a theory is. A model can be a speculation, a hypothesis, or, indeed, it can be a theory. For instance, there was a model for the planet Vulcan, which was used to explain the motion of Mercury's perihelion. But, that model was speculation and never made it to the status of a theory. There was the model of isospin for atomic particles, and while that never made it to theory, it was a useful hypothesis for identifying atomic particles. Now, General Relativity, is a model that has made it to the status of theory. And don't use the word theory as amateurs do, as a guess, speculation or a hypothesis. Scientists use the word theory to describe our model that is our best explanation of a phenomena. A theory will have a lot of observational, experimental and theoretical support.

Multiverse theory predicts an infinite number of other universes.

Yeah, but Multiverse theory is tied to M-theory, which is tied to Superstring Theory. Neither M or Superstring are really theories, they are, at most, at this stage, a hypothesis. And Multiverse is no better than informed speculation at this point.

So how can you definitively state that nothing existed prior to this one Big Bang?

Because, at this point, there is no evidence for anything existing prior to the beginning singularity. By all means, if you have some actual observational evidence, show us. Otherwise, you're just pontificating.

Give me some information for a change.

He did. Strange has. I have. If you don't like it, there's not much we can do.

[WayneFrancis]

There is no meat in your sandwich. You have done nothing but espouse your opinion. I've backed my words up with facts and logic.

I'll start looking for your facts and logic

Soooooo....... What are you proposing? Either Big Bangs are random or they aren't. If not then what are they? Non-random? Non-random implies planned which in turn implies divine intervention. I'm waiting.

What makes you think non-random implies divine intervention. The Sun rises in a very non random pattern and I don't see how that implies "divine intervention". The frequency of a photon release from an electron dropping from N3 to N2 is 656.3nm, completely non random. So your "logic" is faulty.

A theory with nothing to back it up. we don't know how big the universe is so how can we know the Big Bang was a UNIVERSAL event.

We have no evidence of any other Big Bang. The whole of our visible universe seems to have participated in the same "Big Bang". Things beyond our visible universe are not causally connected thus don't effect us and we see no "introduce matter" into our Hubble volume.

How do we know? Its called theory of knowledge and in particular "justification of knowledge". From observations everyone can agree that there was a big bang. No observations point to there being more then 1 big bang.

An explosion is a rapid expansion of matter. Its as good a description as any.

No it isn't. It isn't a rapid expansion of matter. It is a rapid expansion of space which allowed energy to form everything we see including baryonic matter which is very little of what actually makes up our Hubble volume.

People make mistakes. Assuming the universe started with the big bang was probably one of them. Any evidence that the universe wasn't around prior to the Big Bang?

Big Bang actually doesn't address what came before. It might not even be applicable. The conditions are beyond our models of physics. We don't have any evidence to anything prior to the big bang so speculating about it serves little purpose until you can come up with a why to test the speculations.

Because you say so? Elaborate and stop pontificating.

The current best model doesn't include multiple big bangs and we have no evidence even hinting at multiple big bangs. That is why. If you want to claim otherwise then you are making a ATM claim and should bring that to the ATM forum and support your claims.

I understand the model. I'm disagreeing with fundamental points of it. Why assume the universe wasn't already here?

You clearly don't understand the model by your previous descriptions of what you think the "Big Bang" was.

Prove it. A model is just a theory.

There it is ... "just a theory". You apparently don't know what the definition of a "theory" in scientific terms is. A model isn't a theory. A model is a simplistic representation that produces results consistent with observations.

Multiverse theory predicts an infinite number of other universes.

Some multiverse ideas say that there MAY be an infinite number of other universes. To date there is no way of testing this so it is about on par with me saying "Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns are responsible for the apparent cosmological red shift of light."

So how can you definitively state that nothing existed prior to this one Big Bang? Give me some information for a change.

Science doesn't give definitive answers. It gives the currently best explanation for a phenomena. Frankly the current best explanation for what was "before" the big bang is "We have no evidence that there was or was not anything before the big bang".

You are making unsupported claims and you might say we are to but think of it this way.
Man calls up the police to report a theft at his home. The police come to his home to take the report and the man says "They've stolen everything" while the police look around to a fully furnished and tidy house. The police point out to the man that every thing seems normal and could he tell them what is missing. The man replies everything! Puzzled the police ask for an example and the man says "they stole my couch!" and the police look at the couch and ask if it looks like the one they are currently looking at and the man goes "exactly like that one". The police ask where was the couch that was stolen and the man replies "Right there where that couch is!". The police reply in a confused tone "Where did that couch there come from?" and the man goes "I don't know! The thieves must have put it there after taking my couch". The police then decide there was no theft and leave.

There is no evidence of there being any theft. It is logical for the police to conclude that given that there is no evidence of theft that no theft has occurred or in this case that even if it did occur it didn't matter because everything that was stolen must have been replaced with an exact replica thus has no bearing on the state of things.

[pzkpfw]

Drone Technician, you are walking a fine line here. Please read the rules, pause, and then tone it down a little.

The Q&A forum is a place to ask questions, not to push your views. You don't have to agree with mainstream science, but if you want to argue against it, you need to go do it in the ATM forum.

[drone technician]

What is mainstream science? A religion? I'm questioning aspects of mainstream science. Its not the holy grail. Science is supposed to be questioned and tested. No theory is gospel. I am asking for information. Why should I settle for "no". I want real answers to questions and not preaching. Facts not religious belief. Mainstream theories are often found to be in error.