LONELY PLANET: As space empties out because of the quickening cosmic expansion, the galaxy that Earth inhabits will come to be
surrounded by a total void.
Image: SLIM FILMS
In Brief
- A decade ago astronomers made the revolutionary discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. They are still working out is implications.
- The quickening expansion will eventually pull galaxies apart faster than light, causing them to drop out of view. This process eliminates reference points for measuring expansion and dilutes the distinctive products of the big bang to nothingness. In short, it erases all the signs that a big bang ever occurred.
- To our distant descendants, the universe will look like a small puddle of stars in an endless, changeless void.
- What knowledge has the universe already erased?
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Fade to Black: The Night Sky of the Future
-
Video
The End of Cosmology Video
One hundred years ago a Scientific American article about the history and large-scale structure of the universe would have been almost completely wrong. In 1908 scientists thought our galaxy constituted the entire universe. They considered it an “island universe,” an isolated cluster of stars surrounded by an infinite void. We now know that our galaxy is one of more than 400 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In 1908 the scientific consensus was that the universe was static and eternal. The beginning of the universe in a fiery big bang was not even remotely suspected. The synthesis of elements in the first few moments of the big bang and inside the cores of stars was not understood. The expansion of space and its possible curvature in response to matter was not dreamed of. Recognition of the fact that all of space is bathed in radiation, providing a ghostly image of the cool afterglow of creation, would have to await the development of modern technologies designed not to explore eternity but to allow humans to phone home.
It is hard to think of an area of intellectual inquiry that has changed more in the past century than cosmology, and the shift has transformed how we view the world. But must science in the future always reflect more empirical knowledge than existed in the past? Our recent work suggests that on cosmic timescales, the answer is no. We may be living in the only epoch in the history of the universe when scientists can achieve an accurate understanding of the true nature of the universe.
This article was originally published with the title The End of Cosmology?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
82 Comments
Add CommentDear Dr. Krauss and Scherrer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to be a logical explanation for the these contradictory and puzzling observations. The birth of the universe out of one particle (Big Bang), is similar to the birth of an organism out of one cell. The expansion of the universe , is similar to the normal growth of a young organism, and represents maturation processes , and not a destructive phenomenon. Similar to the biological systems, the growth of the universe will stop, when it will reach maturity. The death of the universe will not be a result of its expansion, but because the aging and death of its components (stars). A detailed describtion of this hypothesis can be found in an article by Raphael Kleinman in the "Journal of micro and MACRO Cosmos", vol 1, pg 1,2007.[ http://journals.sfu.ca/jfs][/url]
Sincerely
Dr. Kleinman
email: raphaelk@clalit.org.il
--
Edited by Raphael at 02/19/2008 2:22 AM
We thought that nothing could travel faster than light, but that understanding is already being challenged. What would the mass of the universe become, if we were to consider Einstien's theory of relativity - or does that challenge this theort as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would state that Big Bang cosmology is a fallacy rooted in an improper assessment of the Michelson-Morley light experiment. Yet another mistake by mainstream science involves failure to consider that expansion of the universe is caused by a repulsive factor inherent in gravitation. For insight into a more realistic cosmology please visit the following Web site and click on the caption "Cosmic Perspective Physics Abstract": www.cosmicperspective.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile , we must trust the Big Bang theory and enjoy the clear skies and be happy for the lucky anthropic selection !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is highly probable that the human civilization wont survive to witness the end of cosmology...
It is highly probable that the human civilization wont survive to question the Big Bang theory ....
Big Bang Cosmology has escaped the normal process of the scientific method and was established as a scientific theory. More scientific inquiry must be made about the origin of the universe (Plasma universe, etc ...)
I hope to live to see a free scientist who will dare to challenge this theory ...
Proofreading software should only be the first line of quality control. There should be a human in the process. Why isn't there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we know that the universe is expanding away from us and not that we're already in a black hole and shrinking away from it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the continued acceleration of matter toward the speed of light at the extremities of the universe explain why we cannot account for dark matter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy to categorize the observed expansion as a force, namely "Dark Energy" ? The fundamental question is the nature of space: If space is a monad like substance consisting of Plancklength atoms or better "strings" then even the "force" gravity is sparse! Deduced from Einsteins theory we can observe gravitationally lenses, which means that in the nearby of matter there are much more space-strings so that light if it passes matter has to decide qantum-mechanically to enter the more matter-nearer space-string as there are more statistically. If there are such space atoms called strings they nead neighbours: In 3dimensional space =( 3*3*3 ) - 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetween the clusters of galaxies in the empty space there it seems are not enough neighbours, they must be created to fit the law of neighbours in 3dimensional space.... just a theory....
And to finish my theory: Why are there more atoms of space in the nearby of matter (so called curved space) ? The only possible answer is that matter exists in a more than 3dimensional space. If it is just one more dimension then the law of neighbours in space shows up as (3*3*3*3) - 1 = 80 space-strings as needed neighbours for a 4dimensional matter-string. ...And in string theory you calculate with even more tiny curled dimensions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this way we can get rid of every gravity-force partical (graviton) because gravity is no force any more but a statistical movement towards the crowd of space-strings.
Remaining question of my "Needed Neighbours of Space" theory for the explanation of the expansion: What kind of partical or wave is it that is changing into a new atom of space-string when needed?
We frequently see pictures of interacting galaxies with long tails of stars that have been thrown out of their galaxies during the collision. We also see pictures of galaxies with active black holes that shoot high energy particles over great distances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill the supergalaxy of 100 billion years in the future have active black holes? Will there be gravitational or other interactions that could eject matter or stars out of the galaxy? Will any such matter be observable? In the article it is mentioned that for a probe to send a signal over the distances required it would need the power output of a star, so it would be fortunate if some interaction flung a star out of the galaxy.
Are such events unlikely or impossible and would ejected matter and stars recede quickly so as to make it unlikely for a civilization at 100 billion years in the future to be able to observe it? Otherwise that civilization would have exactly the kinds of probes they'd need to observe the expanding universe even without distant galaxies.
Can you properly test predictions about observations which will be made in the long distant future by means of observations made today? I dont think so. Your article highlights the apparent difficulty cosmologists have in distinguishing observation from speculation or even theory and calls into question the extent to which cosmology can be considered a scientific, as opposed to a purely metaphysical, endeavour. Three cheers for the end of cosmology. Its been a long time coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps our current cosmology is largely dead (and deserves to be). If the information theorists Wolfram, Kurzweil et al, are correct (in what Kurzweil calls 'Epoch Six - The Intelligent Universe') then a singularity resulting from the complete marriage of all matter and energy into a 'universal information grid' may be upon us shortly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the recent simple 'cellular automata' experiments support these new theoretical perspectives to some degree -- at least enough in their limited way to lend a level of credibility to an 'information-based' universe.
If further research in this area bears additional fruit (as appears will be the case), the present (and thus perhaps soon to be considered arcane) cosmology is truly dead (as the title of your article postulates), and thus future civilizations would not only be unconcerned about any such levels of information, but -- if they indeed exist at any fundamental level at that point in the future -- will likely be complete masters of the universe in every sense of the word, and 'time' itself would have long-since become relatively meaningless.
"Perhaps someday we will find that our current careful and apparently complete understanding of the universe is seriously wanting."
Indeed!
Steven A. J. Pratt
I strongly disagree with the premise of this article. More distant, hence older, objects simply become more red-shifted -- they do not drop from sight and there is no event horizon. I see the universe like an ever expanding circle (1-dimensional space). Light in this space continues to run around and around the ever expanding circle, but the wave crests get further and further appart. The photon's path in this larger map that sees the universe as an expanding circle will always return to the origin redshifted -- but the degree of redshifting depends on the relative speed of the photon within the 1-D space and the expansion -- no event horizons!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be confused. It isn't really the "matter" that is excelerating away from other matter...it is the space that is expanding and dragging the matter with it. So when the acceleration of space exceeds the speed of light, all the matter ( not in our little neighborhood ) will INDEED disappear from sight. As for darkmatter, it is not yet being dragged by space faster than light, but we can't see it because it is completely "see-through" to any form of light that we know of. It is perfectly clear schtuff! As for being in a blackhole, if that were true not only would the stars be pulling away from us...but the very atoms in your body would be pulling away from each other at an even faster rate! No...I don't think we're all sitting in a blackhole. Besides if you were living in a blackhole somehow you would definitely NOT be able to miss the incredibly energetic Hawking radiation laser beam shooting out into the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch ado about nothing? The premise that the redshift is caused by movement has not been proven. People keep touting assumptions as discoveries. There is one other possibility which could server as an explanation for the redshift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*Some* are assuming that the doppler effect is the cause. Which could be referred to as the increase of distance (expansion of universe).
The *other* factor in the equation is time. The assumption is being made that time is the same throughout the entire past of the universe. That assumption has in no way been proven.
*IF* time is "contracting," (speeding up) it would provide the exact same effect upon the frequencies of old light.
In other words, time shortens over time, but the wavlengths do not shorten correspondingly, which results in our measuring them as being redshifted.
The proof, I think, is in the observation that extremely distant supernovas seem to be happening in slow motion.
The Big Bang lemma was logical in its day. When the cosmic background radiation was discovered it was elevated to hypothesis. Then things started to go wrong and fixes were proposed. I suggest we go back to first principles. The big mistake was made a century and a half ago when it was suggested that if the universe is infinite then the night sky would be as bright as the sun. We now know the midnight sky is as bright as the sun. the cosmic background radiation represents the light of an infinite number of stars with a red shift of 1000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere in the night sky is the Big Bang located? If observations in any direction render the same results, we are in a black hole, otherwise, we should be able to pin-point it. Where is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" ... pull galaxies apart faster than light"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought speed of light is an upper limit in our universe
The local speed of light can be constant, as in light traversing actual space at a set speed, but that local space in which the light is moving is moving apart from other local spaces at speeds greater than the speed of light. Remember, we're talking about space itself expanding, as though you could watch the entire universe expanding - both ends moving away from each other at a rate faster than the constant velocity of the light trapped inside it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact - hold onto your chair for this one - all of the universe outside of our own 14-billion-light-year radius space is moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
All of this is based on observation of a universe which is currently 95% unexplained
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistime will always be the answer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is something I don't quite understand about this article. Why would the rest of the universe be moving away from us(this galaxy and the ones closely surrounding it), if this galaxy doesn't represent the center of the universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that logically, if this theory was accurate, every galaxy would be in a similar situation with the space around it expanding. Meaning that each galaxy would eventually become seperated from every other galaxy, existing in a void of it's own.
So in that case the universe should remain largely the same in orientation, only the scale would change. I'm no physicist, but it seems unclear to me. Is this theory stating that this small cluster of galaxies represents the center of this so called expansion?
The way the article is written makes it sound as if all other galaxies(minus the few mentioned with ours) will be moving out together, simply leaving our cluster static and unmoving.
You can reach is that there is no way to know the origins of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf people in the far future will reach an incorrect conclusion about the origins of the universe because they are unable to make necessary observations, then the same holds true for us today: we may be making incorrect conclusions because we cannot make all necessary observations.
The only conclusion you can make about the origins of the universe is that there is no way we can know about the origins of the universe because it is impossible for us to observe the event directly.
Actually, the origin isn't the problem. That's obvious and already known. It's the process used in the creation that people don't know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature keeps strict account of energy and the total energy in the universe(ie mass) never changes. Would this shuffle of energy about the universe be record itself (eg fading background energy..etc). Also what about the uncertainty principle???..pauloldor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe itself is a giant blackhole until proven otherwise..otherwise your correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't know the origins of the universe. It appears to be expanding now, but how do we know it has always been expanding? We don't we make assumptions that current observations have held true throughout the history of the universe. But we know that is an unprovable assumption. The whole point of the article is that in the future cosmologists will make assumptions based on their observations that will be wrong because they cannot make all necessary observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe may be eternal without beginning or end. We may be in an inflationary period that is temporary. It may be followed by a contraction that is temporary. There may be some unobservable event that causes a fluctuation between the two states.
We can guess about past events, but unless we can observe them directly, that's all they'll ever be. Guesses. We can't know how the universe began.
What if the big bang theory of the origin of the universe is wrong? Will this prediction still hold? What if the steady state theory is right? The article should state clearly the assumption on which the prediction is based.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArvind Gupta
How can someone look down a 100-billion light-year pathway and determine that cosmic isolation will be the result? Will life not make millions discoveries during the next decade, century, millennium? Overcoming dark energy/static energy will be a blessing, allowing us to reach for the stars at light speed and beyond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo do we live in an open or closed universe? Is the Big Bang a single event or on-going phenomenon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difficulty we have, have always had and will always have is trying to explain our observations of a system to which we are a part. "Cannot see the forest through the trees," comes to mind. As long as we are a part of it (this system), any conclusions that we draw as a result, will be microcosmic at best. I agree that as the universe ages, previous states are lost. Information in any system decays as the system ages (entropy) and if the science of an inflationary universe is problematic then the philosophy of one is truly insurmountable.
You (the authors) did paint a bleak future for life in general but you made one interesting assumption...that it still existed. Survival is predicated on adaptation...as is science.
There is no question as to whether the lights will eventually go out; it is a dismal inevitability but we should not discount the possibility of more than one switch.
Nothing can become quicker than the lightspeed, so the proposition of this article only holds true if that speed can be broken !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if space really expands at a fixed rate, so that every point in space is moving away from every other point at a constant rate - would not that mean it would look like an accelerating expansion of universe from every single point, though it is just the constant expansion giving bigger and bigger distances filling up the in-between during the same timespan of the expanding space in itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if there is a truly uniform expansion of the universe, then it would of course look like if this expansion accelerated because the area/volume filling up the expanding space gets bigger and bigger at every point in space, making any observed distance grow faster and faster.
I do not now if there is a possible math to it, or if the math, as usual, gets stuck in the one-dimensionality of math itself; that is: The one (in one dimension), the square (in two dimensions) and the cube (in three dimensions) that can not be twisted or turned from the dimensional axis of mathematical space. Math just can not really cross dimensions, it will always be stuck in this one-dimensionality, like when calculating the diagonal in a square of one, ending in a never ending number, or the never ending pi, etc etc - as you cant turn the square or cube of the basic one around, math itself permits just making the basic one into lesser and lesser ones, that is moved along the axis of dimensions, so the result will always be the absurdities of limes-numbers and so on whenever trying to cross dimensions). Math in itself therefore always points to one-dimensional solutions to every problem solved, or ends in rigged solutions masked with symbols that pretend there is a movement from one dimension to another across the dimensional axis, like string-theory´s one-dimensional strings (in reality maths one-dimensional basics), or like in any math of the light itself, as light has the speed of light, and thus will be a singularity from its own point of view, with the distances seen from outside, from beginning to end, in time, from the view of light itself beeing just a now of timelessness, with distance compressed into a point of an all embracing one (although from outside perspective it still looks like a distance made with the constant of the speed of light). In a way space and universe is therefore a lot of light-singularities that in itself has no extension and no time. The light emitted from a star is thus everywhere along the distance we see at the same time, from its own point of view (if it has one). There must be a connection between these constants of light-singularities and of lightspeed, the constant Time that is behind a uniform expansion of space, and the acceleration this expansion creates to the space itself, and the effect of gravity that comes from this uniform true expansion of space around every entangled entity of matter.
The maths, anyone?
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 10:45 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/04/2008 2:28 AM
Cosmology ceased to exist a long time ago. Today there is no consensus among educated people as to the nature of what is called the "universe." We have no world picture and aren't likely to acquire one using present methods of observation and mathematical gaming. Ironically, our ignorance remains invisible and gets repackaged as knowledge with every theoretical alteration. Making the cosmos vanish is light years removed from having an idea of the nature and extent of physical reality which might qualify as cosmology. Kant was right. The human intellect is wholly imadequate to the tasks it sets itself, and is doomed to end on all occasions in polar and multiform contradictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExpanding space and not expanding energy entanglements like matter creates gravity by the mere expansion of space and the non-expansion of matter (and other such entangled energies).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 12:07 AM
If space is expanding in an uniform way, and if matter and such entangled energies, was not in itself expanding, and was not broken apart from within by the expanding space, then the entanglement that makes up matter would in a way make the entities of matter resemble some kind of deep holes within the expanding space; and the space would, as it continues to expand, in a way bend into, or out of, the not expanding energy-entanglement of matter, as the expansion makes the surrounding space grow bigger and bigger in every direction, growing away from the entities of matter, as space itself is filled up with new space at every point of pure, non-entangled space. The expansion of the space itself would then be an accelarating expansion, as the distance between two points in space would be filled up by a continuos "outflow" of new space that, if it is a uniform expansion, would, from every point, make the distances to any other points grow with an accelerating growth, as the filling up of space-area/space-volume is continued from every new point of the universe at the same time, and any distance thus will be growing in an accelerating way from any point of view. As matter and such entanglements would not expand like the empty space arond it, the space itself would, as it expands, create a kind of space hole in wich the not growing matter rests, and thus make gravity by bending space itself up/down into/out of the restingplace of the entangled energies of matter, and while the space all around would continue to expand in an accelerating way, making the essence of space itself bigger and bigger out of every point of existens, the matter would continue to rest in the not expanding place of entangled energy, in the point of gravitation that comes from the thus bended space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 9:44 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 10:14 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 10:17 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 10:51 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/03/2008 11:12 AM
--
Edited by Playwern at 03/04/2008 2:24 AM
Playwern: Your understanding of the cause of gravity resulting from the bending of space seems to have an apparent flaw. You define space as being separate from matter. You state that space is expanding in between matter. Do you not think that matter is not a part of space as well? Is matter separate from space? I think Im slightly confused.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe time scale of this article assumes that we find a way to escape from our own solar system before our sun burns out, likely to happen long before the 100 billion year end point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thesis of this article is that the opportunity to learn more about the origins of the universe is limited by the very nature of the universe. at the very least, this realization should make us wary of pronouncements by atheists like Richard Dawkins that the "gaps" in man's knowledge are rapidly shrinking so that a "god of the gaps" will eventually be homeless. Rationality can be consistent with agnosticism, but militant atheism depends on a faith in mankind eventually attaining a kind of omniscience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince we don't know what preceded the big bang, we may be ignorant of some fundamentals that may prove our prediction of the "end of cosmology" right for us but wrong on a larger scale. It may be the end of cosmology for humans, but unless the big bang was absolutely UNIQUE, other similar events may have happened or may be happening. Our universe may just be the bubble created by one of many big bangs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do people keep talking about space expanding? That's kind of stupid. If this theory is true then the distance between discrete components is increasing and the volume of space containing matter is expanding, but the overall volume of space is unaffected by the change in volume containing matter. Or are the authors theorizing that there is some mystical barrier (made of rubber maybe?) that defines the boundary of space? If a ship is three feet from the edge of space and goes four feet out at a rate faster than the edge expands outward by one foot, will it bounce off? After all, if they say the edge of space is X distance, how do they know that there isn't matter out farther that they just can't see anymore? Without getting into a meaningless semantics argument, space is just area, empty or full.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the theory of "dark matter" and "dark energy" just a way of saying "gee, our math is bad at this scale"? If you measure things in inches and you measure them in miles, your formulas give very different results. I would suggest that we may want to get a bit more experience moving about in space on both a local and an interstellar scale before proclaiming to know an ultimate truth.
Also, why are there so many posters to this and other articles that don't get basic math? If two cars start side by side and go the same direction but one goes 100 mph and the other goes 80 mph, then at the end of the hour there will be a distance of 20 miles between them. On the other hand, if the two cars go in opposite directions at the previous listed speeds, at the end of the hour the distance is 180 miles between them. This happening on a cosmic scale is the cause of the red shift. With red shift, the actual wavelength does not change. The perceived change in wavelength is due to the transfer of energy from the light particle to the receiver (eyeball or telescope, etc.) being significantly less because the light was travelling in the same direction. Blue shift occurs when the light and the receiver are travelling in opposite directions so the energy transfer is greater. It's very much like how getting rear ended is less severe than getting a head on car crash.
Then there is the whole "curving" of space because of gravity wells. Does anyone actually believe that space bends? The apparent curve is just a reference to how much energy is required to move through that space. At the surface of the earth it takes significantly more energy to climb 1 foot than it does to climb 1 foot at two miles up. Some of that is due to matter density and friction and some due to gravity.
As for time flowing differently depending on intensity of gravitation experienced, or speed travelled; when we reach a substantial percentage of light speed, we may be able to make a meaningful test. Until then it's all just fun speculation.
To Waldo01: Matter is of course a mystery, just like space itself. In the "essence" of Quarks and subatomic "particles" are some mysterious entanglements that takes the role of matter as we know it. All one can say is that there seems to be "something" that takes "existence" in space, and the structures that it becomes, takes "place" in the universe, but if there is some "thing" taking "space" in itself at the bottom level of the entanglements of matter is as far as I know unknown. But the entanglements themselves seemingly takes place and makes up structures that forms in space, having some kind of spacious qualities as a whole. If there is something like one-dimensional strings, or some kind of singularity with no extension, at the very base of what ever makes up the existence of matter, I do of course not know. Is matter expanding like the space? Maybe! But then, what would that mean - how would we detect such expansion, if it did not mean breaking up matter from within. In a way it would just mean that the expanding matter would be surrounded by an accelerating expansion of space, and distances would still grow as the surrounding space is expanding at every point, and distances thus grow in an accelerating way, anyway. But the points of matter would not differ very much from any other point in space, and every point in space would just be a "hole" in space without special qualities. So all I say is that if matter in itself instead is an entanglement that do not expand in the same way as the space itself, then matter would, in a way that differs from the surrounding points in space, become more like true "holes" or points of gravity in the expanding space. At least if space itself has some kind of consistent existence. But what is space in itself? Space do seem to bend around stars, and Einsteins theories of relativity makes it probable that gravity effects the space itself or vice versa. I just use that thought, proposing that gravity is in itself an effect of the bended space that would form if matter did not expand, while space itself expands, creating something like "depths" in the space, with matter at the bottom, thus being a kind of gravity-hole in space. Anything passing through such space would "fall" into such "depths" even though it is really just going straight ahead in an expanding space that bends in the presence of the "entangled" matter. That is Einstein. But this whole idea is meaningless if space has not some kind of quality that makes it consistent and makes it "bendable". So what is space in itself? Well, as long as one can not define mind itself, it is just impossible to know what space or existence really means. There really is no truly objective reality, just subjective awareness of something that is part of this awareness in itself. As far as I know there has never been any kind of actual objective experience of existence, just subjective awareness of the mysterious something that takes the form of space and matter in mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI infer from this present article that the universe will pass beyond a event horizon and will again lead to a universe which is born due to the matter escaping from us due to event horizon.It is also possible that our universe is also formed by this form of event horizon and we cannot see before that event horizon.There may be a complete universe beyond that event horizon which exists in time.I am talking about a process of inflation in which a universe born and lead to an event horizon.And this leads to formation of another universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do we think that the area of used space is accelerating? If we are living in an expanding explosion, the material further from the center of the explosion will travel at a faster rate, Material at our radius from the center of the explosion will have a slightly different angle and therefore will move away from us, Material at a smaller radius will be slower then us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe further away an object, the faster it will appear to be moving away.
All this is true no matter how fast or slow the expansion is going even if the expansion is slowing down.
Since the difference in speed of objects at different distances would not likely match the difference between objects traveling slightly different angle from the center of explosion, we could in theory determine our location within used space by mapping differences in speeds of objects at equal distances. A circular arch of objects with the same expansion rate would lie on our radius from the center of the explosion. At a right angle from this arch, the maximum difference should be detected pointing to the start of the universe.
Has someone already created this map?
Universe is nothing but a system which is converting time into space. This space produced by spending time is distributed throughout the universe, between galaxies, between stars in a galaxy, between planets in the solar system, between atoms in matter, and between sub-atomic particles in atoms. So, along with the universe everything is expanding and becoming big in size. The scales used to measure the exapansion is also is expanding, and so the velocity of light also increasing. And so even after billions of years from today we will observe everything in universe as same as today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein introduced constancy of electro-magnetic waves only as a working hypothesis. He could not imagine that such an important phenomenon would have none relation to other things in the universe. This is mentioned by Vasily Yanchilin in his book "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation". The general theory of relativity is based on that constancy and from it is deduced existence of black holes. But at the Big Bang, where all mass was concentrated, happened the opposite of what is ascribed to a black hole now. Also the emissions with source at or near a black hole, causing a rain of new particles in Earth atmoshphere do not agree with present concept of a black hole. The retardation of light coming from the farthest partner of a double star online with our telescopes can be explained by the fact that light seeks its own shortest path and therefore makes a curve around masses. This is well known observed near the sun. Further data from some Pioneers are not in accordance with old E.g.t.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe special theory of relativity stays valid however if understood thus that the speed of light is not dependent on the position or movement of observers. Yanchilin explains this by his new theory based on the hypothesis that c is related to the potential of the total mass of the universe. In the past when mass was more concentrated that speed was higher and in future as well as to the "edges" of the universe it will diminuish. Until it nears zero in an environment where direction and speed become undetermined. This is a quite different model than proposed in the article. Not needed are a cosmolocical constant and negative energy. Speeding up of the expanding universe is drawn from wrong arithmetics. Such happens more often, for representing the Big Bang as originating from a point is a mathematical manoeuvre. Physically it is impossible. If all gets ultimately in a state like at the "edge" or was so before I think conditions are favourable for a (new) Big Bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVasily Yanchilin namely sees the electron as appearing and disappearing innumerous times within a sphere with Heisenberg relations. If a photon hits it the sphere shrinks immediately to the place of collission, next expands again. If such an appearance, call it an iet so that the word electron can be reserved to the sphere, "feels" an external mass the following occurs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(speed of light near mass is faster, opposite to Einstein's thinking, or time runs faster, parallel to the universe's history): At the side of the electron sphere towards mass more iets will appear than on the opposite one. Inside the sphere the distribution must stay equal. Thus the whole sphere moves towards the external mass. Yanchilin calls gravitation a pure quantum-mechanic process. Now image a pre-Big Bang situation with iets. An Initiative from Outside may have caused the shrinking with next the Big Bang as a result.
Vasily Yanchilin, unlike the authors of the Scientific American article, does not believe in black holes, negative energy and the cosmological constant. He tells that at some laboratory scientists found a new theory and made it known. However further experiments did not agree. Oh, one of them said, a devil disturbed the settings. But such cannot be published in a scientific paper. So they wrote: new experiments confirmed existence of the fourth dimension.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore reading the book The Quantum theory of Gravitation you may believe that black holes grow and grow, unite and will storm Earth. This even faster than light. Happily criminal investigators discovered that the geranium plant has telepathic sensivity. A murderer confronted with the plant at the site where the falling victim hurt the geranium made instruments connected to leaves register small vibrations. So you can send up a rocket with one of a twin geranium. When it is eaten by the attacking United Black Holes you may get a warning from its twin at your window and just sufficient time will rest for a short prayer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace, it appears is flat in the spacial dimensions, but curved in the time dimension. If neuclear particles, including protons decay as has been predicted, there will be no matter in 100 billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, I believe that some new research in this century will show that everything we think we know about the universe is completely wrong.
The whole belief in the expanding universe and the big bang and the accelerating expansion is ONLY based upon the belief (speculation) that the red shifts observed by Hubble are only due to an "... apparent Doppler Effect". Actually receeding velocity was never directly measured. Only distances based upon light intensity received. In addition to any Doppler Effect, there are three larger contributions to the red shift - and they only depend upon motion and gravity - reducing photon energy. The current model of the universe needs reexamination to remove false beliefs (speculations) before real progress can be made - and time of physicists can be devoted to real problems - like solutions to the energy problem. Sol Aisenberg
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould the red shift be caused by diffraction? As light passes through the thin gas of space, is it refracted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The universe will come to an end, and that may be tragic, but it also provides its fill of comedy. Post-modernists and social constructivists, Republicans and socialists and clergymen of all creeds - they are all an endless source of amusement."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i] - cosmologist Steven Weinberg[/i]
--
Edited by buckminster at 03/06/2008 4:53 PM
Brilliant article which actually points (-contrary to it's title?!-) that cosmology and indeed the Universe, may have some aspects- history which we can't even observe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFighting the Big Bang theory starts with a pot shot at the redshift and here is one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]yeoldelog.com/feature/redshift.shtml
yeoldelog.com/feature/redshiftpoem.shtml[/i] - more digestable.
[b]The basic redshift could just be caused by light cooling down.[/b]
There could be other reasons for redshift too: Doppler, escape from heavy mass etc. These could all be contributing factors to a redshift.
Here are some points to consider why it might be true.
1. When a photon loses energy, its frequency redshifts E=hf. (redshift - decrease in frequency).
2. The microwave radiation has a 'temperature' associated with it. It is even called a 'remnant of the heat' of the initial very hot Universe.
3. E=mc^2 means mass is lost when a heat loss of energy occurs, and suggests similarly then a loss of momentum in light when heat loss occurs (E/c)^2=|p|^2.
4. E=hf then shows that the frequency would redshift.
5. Even the Open University describes space metaphorically as an 'oven'.
6. There exist quantum mechanical entities that 'can' have a temperature associated with them. Electrons can exist in a plasma of a given temperature. Even above the author has associated the microwave radiation, photons, with a temperature.
7. The redshift relation z = Hr/c + 1/2{Hr/c}^2 to second order can be derived from the the relativistic Doppler shift: f0= f1√{ (1 – v/c) / (1 + v/c)} (from Open University notes) and also using Newton's Law of Cooling:
dE/dt is proportional to – (T1 – T0) or
E0 = E1exp(-εt) where Hubble's constant becomes the exponential decay constant ε
see web addresses above
8. What looks like an unexplained 'deceleration' using expansion theory is incorporated into the exponential at distances that are large (Hr approaching c)
9. Redshifts which suggest greater than the speed of light velocities are allowed in the exponential explanation (further order terms) indicating objects just further away
--
Edited by sw81245 at 03/08/2008 6:59 AM
--
Edited by sw81245 at 03/08/2008 7:01 AM
According to all of you ( author and commentors alike) we don't really KNOW anything do we? No surprise there! Mere mortals trying to solve the mystery of God's work will only result in theories and speculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that galaxies are not speeding up, but light (radiation) is actually slowing down? The methods for measuring the speed of light are not outside of the frame of reference for light itself. It always appears to be the same speed, because there is no way to stand outside of its sphere of influence to see if it has slowed down. What if it moved much faster in the past? Our inferences about planetary motion would be all wrong. Is there no objective method and 'constant' that is not related to the speed of things that must be judged by the speed of light or another form of radiated energy? Even atomic clocks could theoretically 'shift' and we would not know it if we only use another radiating method to measure them by. If they all slow down together, we cannot measure speed or time objectively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo 'Giulio' -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you doing, using this devil's toy? There's nothing in the Book about computers so this is blasphemy! According to what you've written, we will never know anything...so why are you electro-digitally associating with those who would radically disagree with you?? Just out looking to discourage, eh?
Your statement appears to condone ignorance. May you live in the wilderness - without electricity - until you recover.
--
Edited by Quasimodo at 03/09/2008 7:56 AM
--
Edited by Quasimodo at 03/09/2008 7:58 AM
After reading the story, I think if there will be no proof or trace of our world, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, then why on earth we are fighting about religion, race, wealth, feel superior, inferior, try to be invincible, try to rule over others. Why does not the likes of starting from Pharaoh, Alexander, Hitler to Sadam Husein, Osama, Bush not realise that all their deeds are futile. We are living under an illusion or we may be an illusion itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if everything inside this "event horizon" is clustering (i.e. collapsing), while everything outside expands, could you possibly end with a supernova-like model of the cosmos: a big bang "shockwave" (a rapidly expanding shell of material which eventually accelerates to greater than light speed), and an eventual crunch/collapse of the material inside the event horizon, before repeating the cycle (another bang, which inflates into the available empty space)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the article and watched the video. I have a question. Does this first person observation apply to all observers in the universe? Let us take 3 observers; (A) us (here on Earth), (B) nearby aliens (those that are getting closer to us, about 2/3 of the way to the contracting/expanding boarder), and (C) faraway aliens (those that are about twice as far as the nearby aliens, on the other side of the contracting/expanding boarder). The article is read from As point of view or Cs point of view. A and C agree that they will never meet again, however B will still be in their neighborhood. B sees A and C coming to the center with them. How can A and C meet at B if they are moving apart?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSleipher and Hubble found that light (radiation) was displased (redshifted) proportionally to the distance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as the only known interpretation was the Doppler velocity-shift, they multiplied the redshifted part of the light spectrum with the light speed.
It was OK as long as the redshifting was less than 100% (z=1).
But today galaxies at about z=6 is found.
It implies that the first pillar has collapsed.
And there is an hithereto unknown explanation that the redshift is an entropy-phenomenon that forces the radiation's energy towards equilibrium.
When it is accepted we don't need the dark energy hypothesis.
Then the second pillar has collapsed.
There is an entropy theory that also explains Max Planck's measurings of the heat radiation's displacement of the wavelengths that is misinterpreted as energy jumps.
--
Edited by S.Ingvar at 03/12/2008 5:01 PM
Whenever one asks a Physicist about the nature of light speed the answer will be: "It is the speed with which the universe expands".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNoticing the increasing speed of expansion of the universe should therefore imply that the speed of light is not constant.
If in "our" part of the universe the speed of light looses on the speed of light observed in the outer regions of the universe, the observation of an accelerating expansion could be explained.
I leave it to anybodies guess, what implications that might have.
--
Edited by waltking at 03/16/2008 9:52 PM
Gee, what a conincidence we are here now making the observbation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow convenient, maybe a little too convenient. I have a buck that says 100 years from now this conicidence will be pointed to as one of the early indicators of how wrong physics and cosmology were way back now.
It's too coincidental that we are observing now in the sweet spot in all of infinity. In a hundred years people will laugh and point to this as being one of the early warning signs of how far off physics and cosmology both were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd waltking, light has no speed. it is everywhere along it's path instantly simultaneously. We have a c a constant speed with which we are capable of perceiving light. Our perception is constrained by time. Light is not.
I remember what the predicted far future "(heat death") was back before accelerated expansion was discovered. It is all different now, and will change completely as more things are discovered. We really don't know if the accelerated expansion will continue as is, it may slow down, stop, reverse, or even speed up without limit. There are a lot of other things that can go wrong with the simplistic picture in the article also. My prediction is that the postulated far future will look a lot different in 30 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you might imagine, we here at the magazine have been swamped with responses to this article and haven't been able to keep up. Almost all the questions posted here can be answered by reviewing our article on the big bang from March 2005, at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03. For instance, this article explains why faster-than-light recession velocities do not contradict special relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge Musser
What if the universe is not expanding but is really in entropy, being sucked into a giga super massive black hole at the edge of the observable universe? I wonder how the mathmatics work here. it eradicates the need for dark energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisim assuming the scientists involved already factored in the fact that the farther back they peer, the farther back in time they are looking, so the closer they get to the big bang, the faster things would be moving. or at least i hope they would've figured it out already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthen wed be screwed. according to stephen hawking, there is no realm of unobservable at least in the three dimensions we know. soon we'd peer so far that we'd see ourselves
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very terra-centric viewpoint and will eventually be be debunked as such. You will note that the visual models depict the galaxies that leave the event horizon disappear as if they no longer exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is but one SECTOR of the infinite universe. Far away a new big bang is taking place and still farther, another sector is collapsing upon itself, spent of momentum.
The universe is infinite and eternal.
an existing substance is to be described as S = M + i E / c^2 .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a certain independent area, if M + E / c^2 = constant ( in other words when M decreases by ?M, E will increases by ?E = ?M c^2 ), then abs( S ) = will be minimum when M = E / c^2, because abs( S ) = root( M^2 + E^2 / c^4 ).
The uneven-distribution of the emission energy with its separation force inside a blackhole in its two poles areas will drill the gravity potential and open two exits through which jets burst out.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
Doesn't your news that the expanding universe will send galaxies beyond the event horizon suggest that galaxies have already disappeared over that horizon? In other words it is not "dark matter" but "far away matter" that is puzzling cosmologists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a novel cosmological model based upon a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical shock-wave universe topology that explains this expansion and explains what lies outside our current field of view. The theory is The Hypergeometrical Universe - http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of relativity is applied only on what is into our universe but the mass of the universe can be measured only in relative to whats outside our universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the universe which includes ours the speed of light may be a normal speed or may be a stationary (equals 0) and the top speed in this universe may be c squar
As a scientist, it pains me to say that there are several flaws in this article (or at least the beginning - I won't pay for the rest.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The synthesis of elements in the first few moments of the big bang and inside the cores of stars was not understood." Wrong - no elements were synthesized in the first few moments of the big bang. Atoms didn't form for some time, and then it was 75% hydrogen, 25% helium. Nothing else. Heavier elements were all synthesized in stars, elements heavier than iron in supernovae.
"The expansion of space and its possible curvature in response to matter was not dreamed of. " Einstein wrote up his theory of special relativity in 1905, and general relativity (curved space) in 1915, so I suspect he was dreaming of it in 1908.
And I won't even bother to answer some of the comments to this article. But regular folks can post what they want - SI should get its facts straight before publishing.
I proposed a model where the 3D Universe expansion comes naturally out of a considering our Universe a lightspeed expanding 3D hyperspherical shockwave propagating within a 4D spatial manifold. This means that in my model, spacetime is five dimensional. All cosmological observations are easily explained and the existence of parts of the Universe traveling away from us at speeds higher than the speed of light are predicted from simple topology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also introduced a new model for matter based upon metric dilators. A fundamental dilator is a coherence between deformation states of the metric. In addition to tunneling between the four phases, it also spins within the 4D spatial manifold and in doing so its intersection with our 3D Shockwave Universe becomes only different from zero at specific phases of the spinning motion. The spin half quantization means that for a particle to exist (interact) its spinning and tunneling frequencies have to have a 1:2 relationship.
All hyperons and isotopes were modeled as more complex coherences based upon the fundamental dilator one. This reflects a Fourier perspective on interaction. Interacting particles have to have an underlying common frequency.
The Hypergeometrical Universe theory also explains the Pionner Anomaly, the double jet Black Holes, the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion, Gravitational Lensing and provide a new direction for Nuclear Fusion (Coherent Nuclear Fusion).
In summary, there is a novel model created by an amateur which explains what Cosmologists are discovering in a simple manner.
The site with papers and simple explanations about the theory can be found just by searching Hypergeometrical Universe.
Cheers,
MP
Not a bubble but an expanding hyperspherical shockwave as a proposed in my theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com
The theory proposes a simple solution of the 3D Universe expansion, simple equations for the Cosmological Constants and the derivation of all natural Laws (Gravitation, Electrostatics and Magnetism). It also proposes an alternative model for matter (The Fundamental Dilator) which eliminates the need for Strong and Weak Forces.
The only thing my theory doesn't have is criticism, which would always be welcome.
Cheers,
MP
i love astrophysics, cosmology and all that. its just like politics, but in here theres only one true answer that can turn out to be a big lie or an entirely different thing!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing can travel through space faster than light. This has been borne out by many experiments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this doesn't apply to the expansion of space itself though. Space can expand faster than light, which is the whole argument why the distant galaxies will disappear from view!
The matter itself is not accelerating!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSPACE is expanding!
What if we based our Cosmology on the Newton, Einstein and known quantum physics, or is that too radical?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the Big Bang there was no mass, if there had been even a small percentage of the present mass of the universe it would have formed a Black Hole, regardless how much energy was present. Quantum physics shows us that at very low mass time separates into myriad possibilities, extrapolate that further and with no mass time has infinite possibility or to put it another way time with infinite possiblity has no meaning.
Energy and mass are just different forms of the same thing (much like water and ice) according to Einstein's E=mc2. When the first mass formed from the existing energy (the energy existed "before" the Big Bang and since time did not exist does "before" have any meaning) time was given "direction" and the Big Bang was on.
The Big Bang is a single "nuclear" event so it can be described by E=mc2. With very little mass and a little algebra we get to c2=E/m and see with all of the energy of the universe and and a divisor of almost 0 that hyperinflation is inevitable.
This simple theory of quantum time not only appears to give a simple explanation for the Big Bang, unifies quantum and classical physics but also appears to provide a simple model to explain how the accelation of the universe continues. I look forward to working with others to more fully realize this theory of "Quantum Time".