Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

Dec 12, 2013
Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before
A collapse of the universe will happen if a bubble forms in the universe where the Higgs particle-associated Higgs-field will reach a different value than the rest of the universe. If this new value means lower energy, and if the bubble is large enough, the bubble will expand at the speed of light in all directions. All elementary particles inside the bubble will reach a mass that is much heavier than if they were outside the bubble, and thus they will pull each other into supermassive centers.

Maybe it happens tomorrow. Maybe in a billion years. Physicists have long predicted that the universe may one day collapse, and that everything in it will be compressed to a small hard ball. New calculations from physicists at the University of Southern Denmark now confirm this prediction – and they also conclude that the risk of a collapse is even greater than previously thought.

Sooner or later a radical shift in the forces of the will cause every little particle in it to become extremely heavy. Everything - every grain of sand on Earth, every planet in the solar system and every galaxy – will become millions of billions times heavier than it is now, and this will have disastrous consequences: The new weight will squeeze all material into a small, super hot and super heavy ball, and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.

This violent process is called a phase transition and is very similar to what happens when, for example water turns to steam or a magnet heats up and loses its magnetization. The phase transition in the universe will happen if a bubble is created where the Higgs-field associated with the Higgs-particle reaches a different value than the rest of the universe. If this new value results in lower energy and if the bubble is large enough, the bubble will expand at the speed of light in all directions. All elementary particles inside the bubble will reach a mass, that is much heavier than if they were outside the bubble, and thus they will be pulled together and form supermassive centers.

"Many theories and calculations predict such a phase transition– but there have been some uncertainties in the previous calculations. Now we have performed more precise calculations, and we see two things: Yes, the universe will probably collapse, and: A collapse is even more likely than the old calculations predicted", says Jens Frederik Colding Krog, PhD student at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP³ - Origins) at University of Southern Denmark and co-author of an article on the subject in Journal of High Energy Physics.

"The phase transition will start somewhere in the universe and spread from there. Maybe the collapse has already started somewhere in the universe and right now it is eating its way into the rest of the universe. Maybe a collapse is starting right now right here. Or maybe it will start far away from here in a billion years. We do not know", says Jens Frederik Colding Krog.

More specifically he and his colleagues looked at three of the main equations that underlie the prediction of a . These are about the so-called beta functions, which determine the strength of interactions between for example light particles and electrons as well as Higgs bosons and quarks.

So far physicists have worked with one equation at a time, but now the physicists from CP3 show that the three equations actually can be worked with together and that they interact with each other. When applying all three equations together the physicists predict that the probability of a collapse as a result of a phase change is even greater than when applying only one of the equations.

The theory of phase transition is not the only theory predicting a collapse of the universe. Also the so-called Big Crunch theory is in play. This theory is based on the Big Bang; the formation of the universe. After the Big Bang all material was ejected into the universe from one small area, and this expansion is still happening. At some point, however, the expansion will stop and all the material will again begin to attract each other and eventually merge into a small area again. This is called the Big Crunch.

"The latest research shows that the universe's expansion is accelerating, so there is no reason to expect a collapse from cosmological observations. Thus it will probably not be Big Crunch that causes the universe to collapse", says Jens Frederik Colding Krog.

Although the new calculations predict that a collapse is now more likely than ever before, it is actually also possible, that it will not happen at all. It is a prerequisite for the phase change that the universe consists of the that we know today, including the Higgs particle. If the universe contains undiscovered particles, the whole basis for the prediction of phase change disappears.

"Then the will be canceled", says Jens Frederik Colding Krog.

In these years the hunt for new particles is intense. Only a few years ago the Higgs-particle was discovered, and a whole field of research known as high-energy physics is engaged in looking for more new particles.

At CP3 several physicists are convinced that the Higgs particle is not an elementary particle, but that it is made up of even smaller particles called techni-quarks. Also the theory of super symmetry predicts the existence of yet undiscovered particles, existing somewhere in the universe as partners for all existing particles. According to this theory there will be a selectron for the electron, a fotino for the photon, etc.

Explore further: New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

More information: Journal of High Energy Physics: Standard Model Vacuum Stability and Weyl Consistency Conditions, Authors: Oleg Antipin, Marc Gillioz, Jens Grund, Esben Mølgaard, Francesco Sannino (CP3 - Origins and DIAS). arXiv:1306.3234 arxiv.org/abs/1306.3234

cp3-origins.dk/

Related Stories

Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

Oct 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —The recently discovered Higgs boson is best known for its important role in explaining particle mass. But now some physicists are wondering if the Higgs could have played an equally significant ...

Recommended for you

Awakening the potential of plasma acceleration

5 hours ago

Civil engineering has begun for the new Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment (AWAKE) at CERN. This proof-of-principle experiment will harness the power of wakefields generated by proton ...

Magnetic memories on the right track

5 hours ago

Computer hard drives store data by writing magnetic information onto their surfaces. In the future, magnetic effects may also be used to improve active memory in computers, potentially eliminating the need ...

When an exciton acts like a hole

7 hours ago

(Phys.org) —When is an electron hole like a quasiparticle (QP)? More specifically, what happens when a single electron hole is doped into a two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet? Quasiparticle phenomena ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

megmaltese
1 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2013
Wasn't it expanding indefinetly???
allworld212
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2013
My take on the Big Crunch is that if a big enough star can collapse in on itself, then it stands to reason a universe can do it. After all, aren't you dealing with the same forces, but, on a larger scale? My only wonder is if while some universes are collapsing, are there others being born by exploding outward, only to collapse after running their courses? Is this some kind of continuum where universes flicker in and out like bubbles in a pot of boiling water?
sirchick
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2013
What happened to the dark energy expanding the universe at exponential rates with no force strong enough being able to counter that?

I was told the universe would lead to a big freeze once all the stars die out. Did i miss something?
krundoloss
3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
If the universe contains undiscovered particles, the whole basis for the prediction of phase change disappears.


Yeah, well, I severely doubt that we have discovered all the particles in the universe. So that effectively nullifies this whole article.

Doesn't the accelerated expansion of the universe violate the conservation of energy? I prefer the theory that space is being actively created in many places at once, as opposed to things moving farther away from each other at a faster and faster rate.

The Big Freeze does seems more in line with observation. Why would we assume a huge change is going to happen in the future? What is the basis for this claim? It is more logical to assume that things will continue on as we have observed, the Universe will expand, stars will make heavier and heavier elements until no fusion can exist, stars die out, and the universe expands to become sparse and dead.

shavera
5 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2013
Yeah, this argument is definitely leaving out some serious gaps.
1) As we understand the standard model and GR at present, the universe is likely to expand indefinitely, in an accelerated manner, most likely.
2) These authors are proposing that the equations of quantum fields suggest a phase change, something that would dramatically alter the way particles interact throughout the universe, negating the previous comment.

Mostly just the downright assertion that 2 is the case... I dunno, sets off my "be skeptical of this research" kind of alarms.
Mayday
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2013
What defines the expanding edge of this "bubble"? And if it presents a property of every particle "within" it, how does it propagate across empty space? Might not it disperse and loose it's "effect" on normal matter with distance across emptiness? And... wait for it... might not this Higgs mediated phase transition be a catalyst that spurs the birth of at least some some black holes? Or is it all just good grist for sci-fi?
antialias_physorg
2.9 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2013
I wish people would read the article before commenting.

My take on the Big Crunch...

This isn't related to the Big Crunch.

Wasn't it expanding indefinetly

It says quite plainly in the article
if a big enough star can collapse in on itself, then it stands to reason a universe can do it

A star doesn't need to content with locally expanding space faster than light can traverse. The universe does. Stellar and universal collapse are different critters altogether.

"The latest research shows that the universe's expansion is accelerating, so there is no reason to expect a collapse from cosmological observations. Thus it will probably not be Big Crunch that causes the universe to collapse",


Mayday
2 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
If the collapsing super-heavy particles form a black hole quickly enough, might it not consume the expanding bubble of mass-increasing fairy dust? All the universe would see is just another black hole pop into existence.
davidivad
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
It is nice to see that people are starting to play with the Higgs field. It does not seem like any real direct work has been done since the sixties; it took proof. Eventually we will see different ideas competing and that is where the real work is done.
roldor
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2013
There are again two posibilities!
1. They got sick in the head through too much stirring of too much coffee and lack of sleep.
or
2. The didn`t understand Albert Einstein.

I rather think that the second is true. E=mc². If the mass would suddenly change, then also c
must change. And then the Equivalence_principle. That means, that if it becomes more heavy,
then also the inertial mass must increase. That means, that nothing changes then. You even
would not notice that at any orbit. Because c changes also, E and H must change.
Thus all forces too. If you would suddenly weight twice as much, then you would - because
of the change of forces -suddenly be twice as strong and also would not notice that.
freehit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
Another dumb comment: Could this theory explain the Great Attractor? (The area in space where it appears that all the local galaxies are rushing together.)
Mayday
3 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
Freehit, only if gravity's effect is instantaneous at a distance, I imagine.
Roldor, I had the same idea that it wouldn't make any difference, but thought that answer was just too simple and obvious. Maybe not. Too bad. I did find the whole idea that the universe might crash down to the size of a cranberry in the next nanosecond kind of fascinating. Though wouldn't you think that every possible interaction of every type of particle at every possible energy has probably already happened somewhere in the universe? Just... one... more... left... to... try. Ooops!
Zephir_fan
Dec 12, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fionn_MacTool
3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
Ok, so this article seems to say the following: There is a new theory that suggests the universe can suddenly go pop (or is it crunch?) and life as we know it will be destroyed. As time passes the probability of that occurring increases. BUT, there is also a chance it may never occur. Ground breaking stuff.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2013
Pseudo-scientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo!
Whydening Gyre
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2013
Skippy sit down and let the smart people try to teach you something. Let's just change one thing at a time and see how that change works out. Changing everything at once is too disorderly.


Okay "Skippy"... Let a dumb guy clue you in on a little secret - the smart people all know that EVERYTHING in this Universe is CONSTANTLY changing. We just observe that "disorder" in snapshots and say it appears unchanging -for a while...
Humpty
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2013
Sometime in the next infinity or two, I, we, all of us are fucking DOOMED!!!!!

If we don't die, then the sun will expand and burn us, and then go spaz-a-nova, and then the black hole at the galaxy core will eat us up and then the universe will collapse in on it's self....

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Fuck off and leave me alone..... Give me my meds and go away...

Zephir_fan
Dec 12, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
We have little to worry about.as long as this event happens far enough away - well beyond the Hubble distance. Even if this phase transition is propagating at the speed of light, it's recession velocity relative to us would be superluminal due to expansion. Since changes in a gravitational field don't propagate faster than the speed of light, much of the universe that is far enough removed would remain unaffected.

The expanding region of "collapsing doom" could not catch up with regions already accelerating superluminally, and the transition would actually appear to be a receding phenomenon relative to most exceedingly distant objects.
Whydening Gyre
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2013
Okay "Skippy"... Let a dumb guy clue you in on a little secret - the smart people all know that EVERYTHING in this Universe is CONSTANTLY changing.


Two things, first, DON'T SKIPPY ME, Skippy. So if you are a dumb guy, and I find it easy to take you at your word, why are you interrupting the smart people? SIT DOWN and SHUT UP. You are making an unseemly spectacle of yourself.

We just observe that "disorder" in snapshots and say it appears unchanging -for a while...


The "disorder" you are observing is your unchanging stupidity, that will be how it will appear for a very long while.... Sorry dudette, I am forced to give you the bad karma points -for awhile...

Man... you sure told me...:-)
kienhoa68
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
We are nowhere near knowing the limits of the expansion. I doubt we need to contemplate the reverse quite yet.
TransmissionDump
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Can someone tell me how universe expands faster than c?
I thought c was constant.

Genuine curiosity question from a dummy.
Ta.
PS3
1 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
"The phase transition will start somewhere in the universe and spread from there."

How could that be the end if space is expanding at a faster rate ?

ViperSRT3g
2 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Can someone tell me how universe expands faster than c?
I thought c was constant.

Genuine curiosity question from a dummy.
Ta.

Space itself is expanding from all points within it.

Take a meter stick for example. Due to the expansion of the universe, it's slowly becoming progressively longer because the space it occupies is slowly expanding.

Now imagine a measuring stick that's about a light year long. This too is steadily getting larger, but at a much faster pace because imagine it being made up of meter sticks and each one of those is slowly growing longer. The expanding effect sort of compounds itself as you measure larger distances in the universe.

Eventually you get to the point where far reaches of the universe are moving away from each other due to this effect at speeds faster than the speed of light.
gwrede
1 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
In a few months, the authors or some other people, will find out an embarrassing flaw with this article. I don't think the end of the world will come before that.
TransmissionDump
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Viper: thanks mate.
: )
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
"The latest research shows that the universe's expansion is accelerating, so there is no reason to expect a collapse from cosmological observations. Thus it will probably not be Big Crunch that causes the universe to collapse", - above article


The phase transition in the universe will happen if a bubble is created where the Higgs-field associated with the Higgs-particle reaches a different value than the rest of the universe. If this new value results in lower energy and if the bubble is large enough, the bubble will expand at the speed of light in all directions. - above article


... but can the phase transition which evidently travels at c Through space, overtake the accelerated expansion, which is of space-time itself?
ViperSRT3g
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
... but can the phase transition which evidently travels at c Through space, overtake the accelerated expansion, which is of space-time itself?


Nope, as explained by MandoZink below.

We have little to worry about.as long as this event happens far enough away - well beyond the Hubble distance. Even if this phase transition is propagating at the speed of light, it's recession velocity relative to us would be superluminal due to expansion. Since changes in a gravitational field don't propagate faster than the speed of light, much of the universe that is far enough removed would remain unaffected.

The expanding region of "collapsing doom" could not catch up with regions already accelerating superluminally, and the transition would actually appear to be a receding phenomenon relative to most exceedingly distant objects.


To summarize, if it's far enough away that space is expanding faster than c, the event will never reach us. Rendering this final outcome not entirely true.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
I see that MandoZink made the same point, to which I agree, [thanks Viper].

@Whydening_Gyre, never mind zephir_fan, he never makes substantive posts, and I suspect he is an 11 year girl.
Zephir_fan
Dec 13, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
FYI: There are a couple of papers that do a wonderful job explaining the expansion concepts that my above comment was based on.

The first one is an excellent read that took me a while to fully digest:
"Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe"
arXiv:astro-ph/0310808v2 13 Nov 2003
This paper is much discussed in astrophysics forums and is required reading in many universities. NASA, too, recommends this paper as a reference.

The second one is a downloadable PDF that has some nice explanatory graphic illustrations at the end of the paper.
http://space.mit....ican.pdf

They are very educational, offering a solid comprehension of accelerating expansion and its implications.
Anda
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
I can say that too:

Collapse of the universe is closer that when I began to write this sentence. Period...

Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2013
Collapse has already happened. We're just remembering what happened prior to it very vividly...
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2013
so... how will this big crunch affect entropy and the arrow of time?

will there also be a "phase change" in that?
Scryer
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
There most likely are other particles, just much smaller than what we can detect with modern equipment.

I imagine particles that can weave through larger particles like the Higgs boson with relative ease.

A 'fine' matter.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2013
There most likely are other particles, just much smaller than what we can detect with modern equipment.

I imagine particles that can weave through larger particles like the Higgs boson with relative ease.


All the particles we have categorized to date have inherent spin which is what keeps them stabilized to combine & form other matter.

The ultimate particle from which everything is made will not have inherent spin (magnetic moment), when we find the particle which has no magnetic moment & thus no spin, then we will have found that from which everything else is made, & it is not the higgs boson as you are suggesting because we already know it has stabilization spin (magnetic moment). Maybe we will discover this is what "dark matter" is, but so far it's all still just so much conjecture.

Zephir_fan
Dec 15, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
srikkanth_kn
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2013
Is this similar to 'false vacuum' or anyway related to it ?
http://en.wikiped...e_vacuum
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
There most likely are other particles, just much smaller than what we can detect with modern equipment.


All the particles we have categorized to date have inherent spin which is what keeps them stabilized to combine & form other matter.


That's all good and well, but what happens when it stops spinning? Is that what dark matter is?


A particle with no magnetic moment (spin) is not observable using present day observation techniques, therefore we call it "dark matter". We can detect its presence by the gravity field it exerts & from that we can calculate the mass that must exist to create that gravity field. Presently we know the mass that must exist, but due to lack of magnetic moment (no spin) it exists in a form we can't see for some reason & we call it "dark matter".
Zephir_fan
Dec 15, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
A particle with no magnetic moment (spin) is not observable using present day observation techniques, therefore we call it "dark matter". We can detect its presence by the gravity field it exerts & from that we can calculate the mass that must exist to create that gravity field. Presently we know the mass that must exist, but due to lack of magnetic moment (no spin) it exists in a form we can't see for some reason & we call it "dark matter".


Okay, thanks. That is easier to understand than what the google said, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. What do we need to do to be able to see it? Maybe they can scoop some of it up with a satellite and bring it back?


We simply don't know what we need "to do to see it". We have the Hadron Collider to observe other kinds of particles, but it's beginning to appear as if "dark matter" has its own form of an invisibility cloak. We're up against a wall we can't see making it impossible to scoop it up for observation.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2013
A particle with no magnetic moment (spin) is not observable using present day observation techniques

We have observed such a particle (the Higgs boson).

But I agree: Observing such particles is tough. Dark matter is, as of yet, still just a placeholder for "unobserved source of an observable effect".

That the only thing we kow that causes similar effects is something that has mass (i.e. matter) is the reason it's called dark 'matter' (and the reason that we haven't directly observed it is why we call it 'dark').

So postulating a form of matter is a (good!) first hypothesis - but only a hypothesis. We shouldn't completely let ourselves be blind by an "We only know that X does Y - so if something does Y it HAS to be an X" approach. That would be a logical fallacy.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
A particle with no magnetic moment (spin) is not observable using present day observation techniques


We have observed such a particle (the Higgs boson).


Which boson are you talking about? The one in Standard Model ? Now they are talking about bosons outside the standard presumed to have "spin".

If a boson has even the slightest proclivity for spin, it cannot be a candidate for "dark matter", constant state stability is the key here & bosons outside the standard model seem to be on more than shaky ground here. Just one observation of one boson demonstrating spin must preclude all bosons from being candidates for "dark matter", this is because the foundation particle must never change state under any conditions or the Universe will flash out of existence.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2013
Which boson are you talking about? The one in Standard Model ? Now they are talking about bosons outside the standard presumed to have "spin".

The simplest theory for the Higgs bosons postulates on boson wit 0 spin. Yes there are other theories with more Higgs bosons which have spin. But either (spin or no spin) would be detectable by the LHC. So it's not absolutely correct that we can't detect 0 spin particles (yes, I know, we detect decay elements..so this is somewhat splitting hairs)
ViperSRT3g
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
The second one is a downloadable PDF that has some nice explanatory graphic illustrations at the end of the paper.
http://space.mit....ican.pdf

They are very educational, offering a solid comprehension of accelerating expansion and its implications.


Thank you very much for the information MandoZink. It has cleared up my understanding substantially. I've always wondered about the actual distance when calculated for expansion of objects in the distant universe.

Back to the point of the article, I wonder what would cause any sort of fluctuation in the Higgs Field to cause particles within to gain or lose mass?
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
Back to the point of the article, I wonder what would cause any sort of fluctuation in the Higgs Field to cause particles within to gain or lose mass?

That's going to be the main trick to find out, won't it?

Let's speculate a bit here: if we could manipulate the field in a way that would dampen its effects on particles passing through it we could create vastly efficient propulsion methods (because the spaceship would have very little inertia).

If we could find a way to completely decouple massive particles from the Higgs field (think 'superconductivity for particle-higgs interaction') then it would even be possible to accelerate to faster than light speeds with ordinary reaction drives, since the realtivistic mass increase would be nullified.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2013
We have observed such a particle (the Higgs boson).


I was under the impression we had observed substantial credible "evidence" of it, not the actual Higgs boson. I shall have to go back and re-read.
Zephir_fan
Dec 16, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2013
Dang, Zeph-skippy... You bitch-slapped me - again!
I certainly wish I had your skill for talking down to people... How much money does someone pay for that? You must be a MILLIONAIRE.

My comment was directed at a smart person (AP) who I am sure does NOT require your admirable(not) screening services...
Makes me think of a chick who gets fired for being a lousy "fluffer" in the porn industry...
Zephir_fan
Dec 16, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
i wish they would get it straight, i remember reading an 'authoritative' article explaining how the universe expands from all points with no center , just an infinite sea [ ya right] , now this article supposedly written by someone who also reads articles like the one i read is saying it will collapse into a 'ball' ???
ViperSRT3g
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2013
i wish they would get it straight, i remember reading an 'authoritative' article explaining how the universe expands from all points with no center , just an infinite sea [ ya right] , now this article supposedly written by someone who also reads articles like the one i read is saying it will collapse into a 'ball' ???

You have completely misinterpreted this article. It's proposing the possibility that if there were to be a large enough section of the universe where the Higgs Field increases its interaction with other particles enough, the resulting gain in mass would create what would essentially be an enormous black hole that would eventually gobble up the universe.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Dec 17, 2013
Viper ! thanks for setting me straight ! i just want to understand.

but to expand on your comment, a massive black hole implies , i think , another big bang ie what happens to giga humungous black holes ?
or maybe i have it [picture of universe not quite right] perhaps they mean a [bounded] area of expansion , not a point.
Zephir_fan
Dec 17, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
pianoman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
So, before the "so called big bang" at that point and before, how or where did the huge empty void come to be ??
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ViperSRT3g
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
Viper ! thanks for setting me straight ! i just want to understand.

but to expand on your comment, a massive black hole implies , i think , another big bang ie what happens to giga humungous black holes ?
or maybe i have it [picture of universe not quite right] perhaps they mean a [bounded] area of expansion , not a point.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here anymore. Black holes still emit hawking radiation. If you were to keep adding mass to a black hole, its event horizon would grow ever larger. In this example, we'd be adding mass by increasing particle interaction with the higgs field. This would result in the black hole's event horizon growing larger.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
ys google stuff, but i don't like the answers i get. ie they try to define the questions away by saying ONLY the nature of the '' universe'' is in qusetion , part of a system not a whole or put another way, will not consider boundary conditions.
i thiink black holes do collapse, in theory
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2013
So, before the "so called big bang" at that point and before, how or where did the huge empty void come to be ??


There was no void (by which I assume you mean empty space), before the BB, or at least it is not observationally nor theoretically meaningful to speak of one.

The universe did not expand into an already existing space,... but rather space-time itself was created as part of the universe.
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2013
If something as big as they universe is about collapse, what are they looking at that makes them think it is?


When astronomers observe distant galaxies they see that the spectrum of the light emitted by particular stars is 'redshifted',... the wavelength is stretched out, indicating that space has expanded from when the light was emitted to when it is received. This is cosmological redshift or the metric expansion of space. On average in any direction the same effect is observed. If the universe was collapsing the light would be blueshifted. This effect is in addition to that expected as galaxies move through space.
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
pianoman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
So, before the "so called big bang" at that point and before, how or where did the huge empty void come to be ??


Well I sure don't know. Maybe it wasn't huge. Maybe it wasn't empty. If it wasn't huge and wasn't empty then it wouldn't be a void.

Why don't you put it into the google and see what he has to say about it? You can even come back and give the class a report on what you found out about the huge empty void and whether or not there even was one before the "so called big bang".


What makes you think Google would have an answer? You saying "maybe this, maybe that doesn't say anything, so to me it's just an unknown, but it's fun just to think about it
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2013
Zephir_fan
We have observed such a particle (the Higgs boson).

I was under the impression we had observed substantial credible "evidence" of it, not the actual Higgs boson.

Well you were wrong Skippy.


Actually, Whydening Gyre was correct. We have not actually SEEN the Higgs bosun as it only lasts for a zepto-second and we don't have that ability, what we have seen is the statistical evidence in the decay particles that points to the Higgs as the origin. See Sean Carroll's book "The Particle at the End of the Universe"
he probably has video's out with the definition (also explaining what 4 sigma means too)

And here is another search engine that will not track your results and tailor your results based upon past searches and what you like… like Google does… you may not get all the info you need form Google.
https://duckduckgo.com/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
There was no void (by which I assume you mean empty space), before the BB, or at least it is not observationally nor theoretically meaningful to speak of one.

The universe did not expand into an already existing space,... but rather space-time itself was created as part of the universe.


this is exactly what the BB theory is saying …
string theory says that it is possible that we are existing in a multiverse, but our local void/space is expanding from our beginning BB generating new space/time as it goes… as far as I can tell, anyway.
Q-Star would be better able to tell you about this particular thing… ask HIM!
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
Zephir_fan
yep! (sigma math) deep and annoying... I hate math.
Q-Star put me on the path to the Sigma rating and to Sean Carroll... he also has some great sites that explain physics and QM. you should talk to him about links...
he is a cosmologist, I believe. I do not remember though.

here is a good link
http://www.ipod.o...reality/

p.s. I am learning just like some others here

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2013
''The universe did not expand into an already existing space,... but rather space-time itself was created as part of the universe.''

as i thought, this is the accepted model, the one i object to , as it makes no sense and tries to define the big questions out of existance.

i understand we cannot answer these questions but we must speculate.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2013
Zephir_fan

Actually, Whydening Gyre was correct. We have not actually SEEN the Higgs bosun as it only lasts for a zepto-second and we don't have that ability, what we have seen is the statistical evidence in the decay particles that points to the Higgs as the origin.


Wow... Vindication....
Zephir_fan
Dec 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2013
BTW - Thanks CaptainStumpy...
ViperSRT3g
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2013
''The universe did not expand into an already existing space,... but rather space-time itself was created as part of the universe.''

as i thought, this is the accepted model, the one i object to , as it makes no sense and tries to define the big questions out of existance.

i understand we cannot answer these questions but we must speculate.


We can speculate all we want, but we can only create theories based on what we can directly observe, and indirectly infer from observations and experiments. We may never know what the "outside" of the universe is, or what the universe is expanding into. But at the very least, we can create the standard model, and others similar to it that explain as much of the universe we can see to the best of our abilities.

Now if you disagree with observations, then by all means please let us know. We can further elaborate on certain aspects of those for you to make them more understandable, or to show you why they are more widely accepted.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2013
''The universe did not expand into an already existing space,... but rather space-time itself was created as part of the universe.''

as i thought, this is the accepted model, the one i object to , as it makes no sense and tries to define the big questions out of existance.

i understand we cannot answer these questions but we must speculate.


As I qualified above (and pointed out by Viper), it "is not observationally nor theoretically meaningful" to speculate beyond what can be empirically verified, at least in principal. Also, it's not really about satisfying our a-priori sensibilities. It's a forgone conclusion (IMO) that the universe at the micro and cosmological scales, is going to be "strange".

Now if there are some pattern like concentric rings or whatever, in the CMBR that can not be account for on the BB singularity premise, then that is some evidence to work with for maybe a cyclic universe.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2013
When astronomers observe distant galaxies they see that the spectrum of the light emitted by particular stars is 'redshifted',... the wavelength is stretched out, indicating that space has expanded from when the light was emitted to when it is received. This is cosmological redshift or the metric expansion of space. On average in any direction the same effect is observed. If the universe was collapsing the light would be blueshifted. This effect is in addition to that expected as galaxies move through space.


Thanks Skippy, but that still doesn't explain what they are seeing that makes it look like "collapse of the universe is closer than ever before".


I answered your question wrt "what they would see" in good faith. Please stop acting like your are an 11 year old, or if you're an 11 year, you should not be conversing with adults in a condescending fashion all the while demonstrating you immaturity, Skippy.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2013
.... but for the Higgs-bubble mentioned above, I would think the increase in mass would effect the radiation frequency more so than redshift/blueshift due to the resulting gravitational collapse (through space). Of course if the difference in Higgs value is large we won't be around to see anything.

But that still doesn't explain what they are seeing that makes it look like "collapse of the universe is closer than ever before".


You didn't asked that. They're seeing nothing observationally, it is just theoretical predictions at this point.
Zephir_fan
Dec 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2013
That's exactly what I asked. I asked it two times even. What are they seeing that makes "collapse of the universe closer than ever"? Whenever you predict something, you are supposed to have a reason for it. What part of "closer than ever" are you not seeing in my questions?


Ha, let me see if I can help ya there. The "closer than ever" part is nonsensical gobbledygook. It has absolutely no meaning in a real science aspect of this topic. Basically ya are correct, they are not seeing anything that would lead one to think it's "closer than ever".

It's like Godel spacetime, metaphysicists and philosopher types like to spend a lot of time thinking & talking about it because it is fun & "way out there", they love subjects with lots of loopholes . Mathematicians like to play with the challenge of the maths, but realize it's a game & not really practical. Lay readers are interested because it excites them that such "wondrous" things are real (which they probably are not.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2013
BTW - Thanks CaptainStumpy...

you're welcome. Q-star actually helped me out with that one a few months ago... made me get the book and read it. so... I had the answer right there in front of me. so... the real thanks should go to Q-Star.

Q-Star
thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

when they (cosmologists) speak of time in articles like this, are they speaking of universe time (vast times spans) ?

I noticed that some articles can be interchangeable. but most tend to be speaking from a vast time frame. just curious...

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2013
''As I qualified above (and pointed out by Viper), it "is not observationally nor theoretically meaningful" to speculate beyond what can be empirically verified, at least in principal.''

in other words we don't have a clue. Instead we claim to know that the universe came into existence in the biblical sense. It defies logic that it is not part of a larger system
Zephir_fan
Dec 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2013
That's exactly what I asked. I asked it two times even. What are they seeing that makes "collapse of the universe closer than ever"?


I think it must be a mistake in the title of the article, as I don't think anyone is making such a claim. Your original question did not contain that phrase, "closer than ever".
Zephir_fan
Dec 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2013
i like this article because it does point to the universe as some kind system.

zepher , you must be a scientist , so self righteous , 'we have the answer'' , even though it makes no sense.
no its not turtles, its idiots, all the way down
Zephir_fan
Dec 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Dec 19, 2013
cheers mate , have a good one
Zephir_fan
Dec 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
goracle
not rated yet Dec 22, 2013
The collapse has begun: see Rob Ford...
tonyjordan37814
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
I believe I would trust what these scientists in the article say before I would trust anyone not in the field. Apparently some of you have not understood the article. Personally, as an atheist, with no belief in heaven or hell, it wouldn't bother me to learn that the universe is on the verge of collapse with all the evil in the world, the suffering, mans inhumanity to man (and woman). If something else doesn't destroy us we will destroy ourselves.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
If something else doesn't destroy us we will destroy ourselves.

Just an aside. We haven't managed it yet, and not for lack of trying...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
metaphorically, it's the universe attempting to find the exact value of pi...
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2014
Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before
OK, but you can buy an anticollapse shield and you'll safe.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before
OK, but you can buy an http://i.imgur.com/lOBWo9x.jpg and you'll safe.

Humor, Nestle?
Cuz I found that funny...;-)
And it looks like it could do your laundry, too!