The universe will completely die in..

...a trillion years, give or take. Not a glimmer of light. Everything in the universe will be extinguished. No supernovas, stars, neutrons, planets, no explosions, nothing at all. So says the narrator at the end of a BBC 4 documentary I just watched.

The big bang was only around 13.8 billion years ago, so a trillion years (a thousand billion) is still a fair way off. I'm only posting this to say, it seems unbelievable to think that eventually no life will ever exist. If that is the case, it does make me wonder, just how important is life if it can be snubbed out seemingly forever, even a trillion years from now?

Or, does anyone think another big bang would probably be triggered again?

OK so the big bang theory and all future extrapolations of this theory (big freeze, big crunch etc.) are all based on the big bang expansion theory. It makes assumptions such as galaxies redshifts being caused solely by the doppler effect, the CMB being the heat remnants of expansion of the early universe, dark matter to explain anomalous galactic spin rates etc. Whilst these fit in well with current theories and are our best explanation of what happened "at the start" and how the universe will end, they are still theories and by no means conclusively proven.

Personally, I believe in a more elegant solution to the origins and fate of the universe, being a relatively steady state/cyclic and unknown in origin or fate; But what use does it have to make assumptions about the beginning and end? Does it bring us meaning/purpose to our lives? How long have we been studying space? Are we really confident enough in our knowledge and theories to make these far-reaching conclusions already?

Now scientific experiments that scale up from our lab that can prove mechanisms explaining how the universe works right now, very useful stuff that, things like the Tokomat fusion reactors to recreate solar energy, and the LHC out to prove, or perhaps disprove Quantum mechanics, or our space probes which are observing planetary/cometary objects never before studied at such proximity (Rosetta, New Horizons etc.), real science.

The usual pseudo-science gibberish these cosmological theorists tend to preach to the masses, whilst thought provoking, is usually about as useful as a chocolate teapot on a day to day basis, and produces a sense of confoundment and incomprehensibility when it comes to explaining the universe. I wish I would hear more of the right questions being asked like; is our model of how stars shine, and evolve correct? Are their any mechanisms we think we understand that could be improved or better explained using different or more elegant theories?

There are people experimenting and thinking more critically about what we think we know out there, trying to break the cycle of going round in circles of increasingly fudging models with patches and changes to fit our constantly improving and new observations of space...
 
OK so the big bang theory and all future extrapolations of this theory (big freeze, big crunch etc.) are all based on the big bang expansion theory. It makes assumptions such as galaxies redshifts being caused solely by the doppler effect, the CMB being the heat remnants of expansion of the early universe, dark matter to explain anomalous galactic spin rates etc. Whilst these fit in well with current theories and are our best explanation of what happened "at the start" and how the universe will end, they are still theories and by no means conclusively proven.

I'm pretty sure all those things have been conclusively proven, that's why they're a Scientific theory and not a Scientific guess
 

"After an unimagineable legnth of time, even the black holes will have evaporated and the universe will be nothing but a sea of photons. And when I say unimagineable period of time, I really mean it. It's 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years. How big is that number? Well, if I were to start counting with a single atom representing one year, then there wouldn't be enough atoms in the entire universe to get anywhere near that number. The universe will remain vast and desolate for the rest of time. Nothing happens, and it keeps not happening... forever. "

Amazing stuff.
 
To quote Futurama;

"... and so the endless circle of life comes to and end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live and why did they die?... No reason."
 
Plus it's hardly a need to know. I would guess any form of human life will have already disappeared by then, so why focus on something we will never be apart off? Let's explore everything else around us that may have possible hope for future generations instead of spending time trying to predict an end.

Also I see absolutely no reason as to why we exists in this universe.
 
Also I see absolutely no reason as to why we exists in this universe.

The conditions were right and we came to be.

Just like how the conditions must be right for bacteria to form on a household surface. If the surface is frozen then the same bacteria won't form, if meat is heated to the correct temp then bacteria is killed off etc.

The universe is a game of chance. Remember that we live on a planet that has had multiple extinction level events through its lifetime, the next one will be during the time humans are living on it.
 
Yeah but do we have a purpose in life? or are we here to simply just fill the void? Just seems silly how we can form onto this tiny little planet, then haven't any idea as to why we are here in the first place or if we have a purpose the universe wishes us to solve.
 
The big bang theory was created to appease the religious. It is far more likely that the universe is growing like everything else we see around us. This means that there was no singularity that created everything in its current form. Galaxies and solar systems and planets and so on form over time in sporadic ways. Thus all planets and suns are increasing in size throughout their life.
 
I don't agree with the big bang theory. It is not the only theory of the universe and it is not proven.

What do you mean "not proven"?

The BBT is the most ideal model that fits what's being observed the most. Refinements to the scientific theory are always being made, formulas crunched and refined again and peer reviewed. It's not just idle guess work! A whole bunch of scientific theories go handing hand, where one is missing something, the other fills the void. Like how the BBT reasons that our Universe came from nothing, an infinitely dense single point in the void, but the membrane universe theory builds on this as does the 4D star collapsing in another Universe, spawning our universe.

It's all a lot to take in :p
 
Back
Top Bottom