Is there any way the universe doesn't end?

Is there any way the universe doesn't end?

Attached: image.png (1231x900, 646K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=12R4FzIhdoQ
discord
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#In_eternal_inflation
youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Latest wisdom is that it's expanding faster than thought.
That eventually (when or what is 'eventually?) everything slows to a dead halt.
Then there will be no energy.
Nothing will move, all will be absolutely static.

And, get this: THERE WILL BE NO TEMPERATURE

Huh? NO TEMPERATURE. Not hot, not cold, but ....NO TEMPERATURE

I made this thread last night but fell asleep before it could finish. I was told a few of these pictures were wrong but I can't remember well enough to explain why.

Attached: bigbang_bigcrunch.jpg (480x480, 50K)

Attached: dark_infograph.jpg (1200x2914, 1.54M)

Doesn't matter because there are infinite universes ending and starting every second. You will die in this universe and reincarnate into a different one. This isn't even a decent universe, there are far better one more in tune for life to flourish.

> "... end? " ;
do you mean:
in the "spacial", or "temporal" sense?

youtube.com/watch?v=12R4FzIhdoQ

absolutely no movement at atomic crystal level equals 0 kelvin.
this is the equivalent to very cold.
i dont understand what you mean by null (non existant) temperature.

Depends on what I decide to do with this universe once i get bored with it.

Attached: La creatura blanca.jpg (980x588, 234K)

b.but if i cant move how will i fap?

>no hands fap

this thread is a highlight on /b.
between all the sexual and unhuman bullshit.

thx

1 of two things;
Either, the energy of the universe becomes so low over a long enough stretch that repulsive gravity comes into affect and kick starts another big bang, somehow; or humans manage to [many many many years after moving out into the stars] conquer entropy.

Attached: 1582407421407.png (641x648, 456K)

the universe is infinite. If we were to observe any of it, we would be observing 0% of it. That's how infinite it is.

big bang didn't happen and doesn't exist. how can something come from nothing? that's like if a bunch of atoms and elements just decided to spawn next to me in the form of a chair.

How can that happen if the space-rip is still a thing? Or for that matter, what is expected to happen by the time the cosmic background temperature is low as that of a Bose-Einstein condensate? Can lumps of baryonic matter the size of planets cool all the way down into that kind of undifferentiated quantum goo?

An oscillating universe model doesn't end and doesn't have to begin. We see every expanding and assume that if we rewind that everything is scrunched in a singularity. This is just good math and bad theory. It is the same thing as watching the average temperatures rise in the summer and predict that at this rate we will be at 500 degrees in another six months and six months ago we were frozen at absolute zero. What if we see the universe begin to contract in 50,000,000 years? Who would be there to see it? Would those people think that the universe started from the outside-in and build their model of the universe based on that notion?

and I posted this the last time:

unless we find ways to warp space ourselves, and establish habitats where space does not expand anymore (pocket dimension f.e.), we are destined to be wiped out, eventually.

Ofc this point in time is so far in the future that it hardly matters for us, and since evolution isn't a 1-way road, it's not even guaranteed that we would still have a sentient mind of our own at this point,

If habitability for humanity is your biggest concern, there are so many more possible events (that might as well are already on their way), that are not compatible with our continued survival.
stellar masses passing through the solar system, supernovae in our neighborhood, solar hyperstorms, or just the good old rock smashing our planet for good - there are endless possibilities for our species to be gone for good, and a good amount of them would come without warning, and could theoretically happen right now or in the next hours...

we are just playthings reliant on really nothing more than luck against astronomical forces so vast and powerful, that we simply can not comprehend their true consequences, if we'd end up in their way.

Wow, compelling scientific argument you’ve got there.

Antimatter + matter = 0

Take your pick as to whether we are made of matter or antimatter, it makes no difference. We are living in an equation where the sum is zero.

minecraft

now even with correct post number
also, only 44.602 posts since your last post...
Cred Forums used to have 150k a day, even more on weekends.
this place surely is going down the shitter.

err, no.
antimatter and matter are still made by the same fundamental building blocks (quarks), and if they annihilate, they just go boom really, really violently.
so matter + antimatter == a fuckton of energy being released

hi, my name is vacuum energy.
how may I destroy your faith today?

different user, but that was a reference to dirac's equation, that particles and anti-particles are constantly created in a vacuum and add up to zero energy

also, boltzman brains.
enjoy the read.

counter vacuum decay
enjoy the read

oh, that one.
yea, still not entirely accurate.
their effects are measurable, hence they can't be a zero sum phenomenon.
interaction without particles might be possible, but IF particles without interaction were a thing, they'd be entirely irrelevant to our existence anyways.

did so 5 years ago.
and your point is?

My theory is actually based on this action being non perfect. If two sets come into existence in just the right way, they can't cancel each other out and fly away in the opposite direction. Enough of this happening over trillions of years could explain all the energy in the universe. This was partially proven by "Hawking radiation" and was all I could think of when I read the chapter "black holes ain't so black" in "A brief history of time"

it can be a zero sum phenomenon, because zero does not mean the cessation of everything, it's just one side of an equation. As long as everything on the other side of the equation cancels out, it still adds up to zero. Particle + anti-particle = 0.

the universe is flat

I am bad at reading. Could you give me a quick rundown? Or perhaps spoonfeed me a link?

Attached: The+Big+Slurp+concerns+that+pesky+Higgs+Boson+that+eluded+us+for+years.jpg (1024x768, 173K)

kills your imaginary brains

This thing you call "Universe" will again shrink to something about the size of an American baseball. It will expand again but in that instance the properties will change.

Your real question is "What happens to me?"

The next "Universe" may not have properties that you can "attach" to. You may have to watch forever while others evolve. You indulged yourself and lost your chance.

Most won't understand. Those that do feel fear. The narrow time is about to happen again.

It's not there they'll be no temperature, it'll be that everything entropies out so there is only a single temperature across everything. Because it is the only temperature there is nothing relative to it and therefore there is no scale to measure it against.

Eh, we'll be looooooong gone by then so no worries.

It might also be slightly lopsided, which could explain the near-emptiness and distribution of the universe. The universe was once full of matter and anti-matter, which nearly annihilated each other, and all that's left are a few positive remnants.

Super fun and based 18+ discord server come join now if you are into active chats, good times and friends and want to shitpost!

discord
.gg/unQqwaf

3

Attached: 1581379673287.png (418x396, 235K)

That's just absolute zero.

is that your theory, tho?
kinda sure I've stumbled upon this one before.
and yes, i DOES explain some phenomenons, but fails to explain others.
continued acceleration of inflation being one of them.
if vacuum imperfect caccum decay were the reason for the current structure of the universe, this process would slow itself down over time, due to the universe becomming more dense, yet we know from universal microwave background readings, that the universe went from a matter-dense state to a less matter dense state.

casimir effect shows us it doesn't cancel out, tho.

it does not, tho.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#In_eternal_inflation
none of the listed problems are limited by vacuum decay in any shape or form.

>This thing you call "Universe" will again shrink to something about the size of an American baseball.
continued accelleration of inflation says nope.

Canceling out is a reference to the terms in a equation, nothing else. Dirac's equation just says particles and antiparticles have to be created in balance, not that they have no effect or wipe each other out.

in which case even the most basic of basic-bitch christian memes is wrong.
something clearly spawns from "nothing".
or the closest state to "nothing" that could ever be possibly achieved.

Vacuum decay would kill all Boltzmann brains and wouldn't allow new ones to form

I'm not some professional in the field, but yes I've been talking about this for 20 years now.

>that the universe went from a matter-dense state to a less matter dense state.

I thought it had more to do with the distribution and size of the matter where planets + stars + blackholes + etc spread out = same energy as dense radiation state. I could be wrong, I am all the time

You keep using words, but I'm not sure you understand what those words mean.
vacuum decay is one of the primary fundamentals that can make boltzman brains possible in the first place...

>I could be wrong, I am all the time
you're not allowed to say that on Cred Forums

Attached: 6dc.jpg (1280x1707, 218K)

recent sims in an expanding universe say that eventually the universe will separate so much that it will become nearly homogeneous and that a homogeneous large universe acts the same as a universe that collapses to a singularity

What can I say, I'm just an overall nice fellow!

Tsunami.

>You keep using words, but I'm not sure you understand what those words mean.
Back at you. Vacuum decay assumes the universe is a false vacuum that might jump to more stable state via bubble nucleation, which would kill stuff like basic chemistry or Boltzmann brains. You seem to be talking about vacuum energy or quantum fluctuations that could theoretically give rise to the brains in the first place, but that's not what vacuum decay means.

and in this case, you are, too.
we know that the universe was a hot, dense plasma before it slowly accumulated to celestial bodies and caused a cooling down of the universe.
still we're in a rather hot state of the universe, where stars still are close enough to be seen with the bare eye from one to another.
that will change.
and even tho it takes amounts of time unfathomable for us, even the most massive black holes out there will eventually evaporate due to hawking radiation, leaving us with an absolutely dark, cold, reaction-less universe.
Speculation: and it might still continue to inflate like cracy, due to the casimir effect getting stronger the less dense matter / gravity there is.

Fascinating. I love existential dread.

dude, no.
vacuum decay is just another broad term that covers a whole bunch of theories, al revolving around the idea that somehow some day a now, more stable vaccum state might be reached, and would spread.
how and why that would disable the ability for vacuum fluctuations to assemble a boltzman brain is entirely in your head.

What about this though?
>Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition. More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence." According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it." Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system". According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state." Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way." In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."

>A recent analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and, "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor. Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."

then you'll love this wonderful mindfuck
youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Bzzz. The new vacuum state, whether a false vacuum or a true vacuum would change the physical constants, destroying all current chemical processes. New types might emerge in the new state, but we know nothing about them.

Attached: 1539404200968.jpg (527x866, 58K)

literally semantics over what entropy means.
the effect itself wasn't challenged by them.

and this points out that we still understand too little to properly map the future of the universe, which is fair, too.
all we can do is guess based on what we see, and let me tell you, we mayn, many indicators that continued inflation is our fate.
can we be sure, tho?
nope.
needs more evidence.
and it takes a truckload more to proove that this is not the route we go down on.

Quite the contrary: there is currently zero evidence that the universe isn't infinite.

This is frustrating.
Dark matter follows the exact same principles as both fucked up assessments (we can't account for x so we will simply adjust for x until it is below error e, where e is dark matter).

It is unfortunately also the exact same path we have followed for many unobserved phenomena until we had the tools to detect them (bacteria were unknown for a long time but we observed that washing hands between human interactions reduced the spread of disease and infection).

Dark energy follows the same pattern but with less substance (three theories that together cover all possible outcomes is not a solid foundation, it just means "anything can happen").

> but we know nothing about them.
EXACTLY
hence the statement that this mathematical thought experiment is impossible in another bubble of physical rules, is presumptious.

also
>would change the physical constants, destroying all current chemical processes.
nope, read your papers again.
it MIGHT do so, but it's NOT certain that it does. In fact, we are not even sure that we haven't been subject to changes of the vacuum state, previously.

>A repulsive force that pushes galaxies apart.
Yeah I'm going to press x to doubt on that.
What this chart isn't taking into account is the existence of things beyond the observable universe.
We know it's there, we get bombarded with radiation from outside the observeable universe all the time.
If there is a critical mass at which everything explodes, it's not that there was only that much mass in the universe. Or that it was a one time event that happened randomly. It's been going on since forever, and will continue on forever, in an endless universe with endless mass. There are "big bangs" happening right now elsewhere where enough mass has come together.
Ours wasn't special, ours wasn't the first, and ours won't be the last.
The heat death of the universe is a lie.

you: there is currently zero evidence that the universe isn't infinite.
cosmic background radiation: am I a joke to you?

also, particle horizon.
for all intents and purposes, the space that we possibly can interact with, is most certainly finite, at its barrier being nothing perceived but hot plasma, which indicates a single starting event for the universe, and a point in time where it happened. and with these two values, it's current expansion can be calculated.

The big ??? in the room are just the exact values.

feck, wrong video.
here you go into the future:
youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

assuming on the other hand that the thought experiment would still work is also presumptuous

that's the whole point of we don't know, same applies to the changes in physical constants

>The heat death of the universe is a lie.
Only for very large values of universe.
The problem is that universe means different things to different people.
If we have an infinite universe, and why not, then anything is possible. It's like dividing by zero.
That's why the guys in white coats don't like it.
It's like having to admit there's a God. A, or multiple, Gods are possible in an infinite universe. Nobody wants that. That would imply that there are no Rules. Without Rules or Laws there can be no Science, and as a consequence, no Engineeering.
It's a quandry.

So according to this the universe is flat but it wants to be round do it's going to destroy itself
This is all globetards fault
Your massive stupidity calling the earth a globe had affected the very fabric of the universe
Good job

>how can something come from nothing
0 = 1 + -1

But there is clearly something (The universe) so where did it come from?

The question is irrelevant.

Sucking, blowing, whatever you call it, it means shit. Fuck all, nothing.

I am going to bed now. I have only had 2 hours sleep in the last 36 hours. Please keep the thread bumped until I wake up if you can.

Attached: 8aDOv.jpg (800x568, 85K)